64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts
- Thread starter roo_ster
- Start date
- Status
Ermac said:
Like when the "terrorists" are actually Quaker ministers, and his congregation...
edited to add this link to the Quaker story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
LawDog said:
Lake Worth, FLA Quaker church.
LJWebster1
Member
I see a distinct difference here, and it exists with all law enforcement agencies. What happens if an officer searches a dwelling without a warrant? Does the officer go to jail? is that a crime? No, but any evidence obtained in that search cannot be used at trial. In order to protect all of our rights, we as a society are willing to allow some criminals to get off on "technicalities" to keep law enforcement in line.
The same applies here. From what I have read, the Justice Department told the President he would not be able to use information obtained with warrantless wiretaps at trial. Warrantless wiretaps have been used very rarely, and with the knowledge that use of the evidence in prosecution would not be possible, they have used this tool for prevention only.
So I ask you, where is the loss of civil liberties? If you are not prosecuted for your intercepted conversation, how have you suffered? I would ask the same thing of the Patriot Act. Can anyone actually give me one example of a person losing any civil liberties as a result of the Patriot Act?
And, by the way, in war time, we violate civil liberties all the time. What the heck is the draft if not an extreme violation of civil liberties? FIght in a war or you will go to jail!! How about putting Japanese in internment camps? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war. Martial law can be declared in war time. Curfews, rationing, etc.
Keep in mind that we are at war here, folks. I think this Administration has done a spectactular job at prosecuting this war as well as they have, and violating civil rights (ours and everyone elses) as LITTLE as they have!
The same applies here. From what I have read, the Justice Department told the President he would not be able to use information obtained with warrantless wiretaps at trial. Warrantless wiretaps have been used very rarely, and with the knowledge that use of the evidence in prosecution would not be possible, they have used this tool for prevention only.
So I ask you, where is the loss of civil liberties? If you are not prosecuted for your intercepted conversation, how have you suffered? I would ask the same thing of the Patriot Act. Can anyone actually give me one example of a person losing any civil liberties as a result of the Patriot Act?
And, by the way, in war time, we violate civil liberties all the time. What the heck is the draft if not an extreme violation of civil liberties? FIght in a war or you will go to jail!! How about putting Japanese in internment camps? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war. Martial law can be declared in war time. Curfews, rationing, etc.
Keep in mind that we are at war here, folks. I think this Administration has done a spectactular job at prosecuting this war as well as they have, and violating civil rights (ours and everyone elses) as LITTLE as they have!
captain obvious
Member
:banghead:
And what percentage of American colonists supported the revolution? Just because something is in the majority doesn't mean it's right or lawful.
And what percentage of American colonists supported the revolution? Just because something is in the majority doesn't mean it's right or lawful.
cbsbyte
Member
Well 64% of American are going to lose their rights, while the rest of us will be fighting to keep them.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Whether they are actual terrorists or not isn't the question. The problem with the current administration's policy is that the President is claiming to be the sole authority to determine:
A) Who gets monitored by NSA
B) Whether or not that monitoring is legal
That isn't the way this country works - checks and balances and all. One of the purposes of FISA is to make sure the judiciary can check the power of the executive to conduct unlimited J. Edgar Hoover style surveillance.
Also, previous Presidents have maintained that they had the authority to order such searches despite FISA; but none have ever come right out and said that they did in fact order such searches.
Finally, a problem that has popped up now is that the lawyers for several people who appear quite clearly to be terrorists or sympathetic to them are now going to court and saying that the FISA warrant used to obtain evidence against them is tainted because the administration used information obtained by warrantless searches to get the FISA warrant without telling the court.
A) Who gets monitored by NSA
B) Whether or not that monitoring is legal
That isn't the way this country works - checks and balances and all. One of the purposes of FISA is to make sure the judiciary can check the power of the executive to conduct unlimited J. Edgar Hoover style surveillance.
Also, previous Presidents have maintained that they had the authority to order such searches despite FISA; but none have ever come right out and said that they did in fact order such searches.
Finally, a problem that has popped up now is that the lawyers for several people who appear quite clearly to be terrorists or sympathetic to them are now going to court and saying that the FISA warrant used to obtain evidence against them is tainted because the administration used information obtained by warrantless searches to get the FISA warrant without telling the court.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
How was the question worded? If it was like this:
then it doesn't say a darn thing about ILLEGAL wiretaps. Somebody who supports wiretaps with a valid warrant through the FISA process (which the administration circumvented, hence the controversy) would vote yes on that poll if so worded.
Anyone know what the actual question was?
then it doesn't say a darn thing about ILLEGAL wiretaps. Somebody who supports wiretaps with a valid warrant through the FISA process (which the administration circumvented, hence the controversy) would vote yes on that poll if so worded.
Anyone know what the actual question was?
xd9fan
Member
and in related news.....
public schools dumbing down the children....
americans still using thier Govt as a way to control people not as a power that must be limited to secure individual liberty.....
xd9fan feels like a whack-job in these current anti-liberty pro-Govt times......
public schools dumbing down the children....
americans still using thier Govt as a way to control people not as a power that must be limited to secure individual liberty.....
xd9fan feels like a whack-job in these current anti-liberty pro-Govt times......
cracked butt
Member
It suprises me that only 64% support the government doing one of the few duties outlined in the constitution that the government is supposed to do: protect the property and people of this country. I'm guessing that the majority of the other 36% believe that government exists mainly for the purpose of being the welfare sugardaddy that its become.
dasmi
Member
When Bush does something about the border, I might buy the claim that he's trying to keep us safe. Not until then.
And for the record, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Ever. No matter what. Period. I'm sorry you are willing to give up your rights for some "safety." I am not.
And you would be wrong.
xd9fan
Member
cracked butt said:
it can do one of the duties outlined just so long as the fed govt knows what the Hell the Bill of Rights are
cropcirclewalker
member
Sounds like doublespeak to me.cracked butt said:
Ignorance is strength. War is peace.
Perhaps the best way to protect the property and people would be to put the property into the nature conservancy with a big wall and guards and the people in a compound surrounded by barbed wire to keep the terrorists away.
No matter how the argument is phrased one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The Drew
Member
Ermac said:
They need warrants because that is the way things are done I.E. The law. If you've been following this story at all, you'll know that they can wiretap first, then get a warrant after the fact. IF this had been done, I'd have no problem.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
That is not entirely true. Bush is claiming the Constitutional authority to authorize this stuff w/o a court order. A whole bunch of people in the judicial and Congressional branches of government have been kept informed on this including some Democrats. If they want to put a stop to it, they can try. They haven't.
Before the FISA court was created, past Presidents still claimed the authority to conduct spying activities without direct oversight. A radio show yesterday was playing quotes from Benjamin Franklin on the subject of spying and informing the Continental Congress of their efforts to bring France into the war. Something about too many people in the know and no secret can be kept.
dasmi said:
what rights are we talking about that have been taken away by Bush? Please elaborate this to me. Have you lost all of your civil liberties? What has been taken away from you? Has something happened to you? Oh and doing nothing about the border? The "wall"
neener: ) that might be built, the support of the minute men...hmm, nothing being done. But besides the point, please tell me about your loss of civil liberties. And no, Im not going to give up any rights, because NONE HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY.Rant Off.
dasmi
Member
The wall that "might" be built?
How about enforcing our current laws regarding illegals?
How about going after large companies that hire them?
As far as civil rights, it does not matter if, I, personally have not been wiretapped without a warrant. If ANY American citizen has been, then it impacts us all.
How about enforcing our current laws regarding illegals?
How about going after large companies that hire them?
As far as civil rights, it does not matter if, I, personally have not been wiretapped without a warrant. If ANY American citizen has been, then it impacts us all.
TallPine
Member
Because it is the law: 4th Amendment and FISA
It's not like they can't get the warrants easily enough - there is a special secret court just to approve (or in very rare cases deny) the warrants.
But King George apparently can't be bothered with the paperwork.
dasmi said:
So wait, you just said "It does not matter if I personally", but you still didn't answer my question, What Civil liberties are we giving up for the government monitoring for terrorism to protect the citizens? And of course it Impacts us all...if a suspected terrorist has been tapped and questioned about the call, then of course it impacts us - it impacts us by not being on the recieving end of another terrorist attack.
dasmi
Member
If an American citizen is a terror suspect, get a warrant. Period. That's the law.
One day, the government might call me a "Terror suspect."
I own some guns, I'm not particularly fond of the current, or previous administration, etc. One day they might call you a terror suspect as well.
One day, the government might call me a "Terror suspect."
I own some guns, I'm not particularly fond of the current, or previous administration, etc. One day they might call you a terror suspect as well.
The support of the Minute Men? The same Minute Men Jorge described as vigilantes?Ermac said:what rights are we talking about that have been taken away by Bush? Please elaborate this to me. Have you lost all of your civil liberties? What has been taken away from you? Has something happened to you? Oh and doing nothing about the border? The "wall"
Rant Off.
The wall that might be built? Huh. Strange that the idea came up just before the mid-term elections.
C'mon, man...
Biker
dasmi said:
As long as you have no ties to any terrorist organizations and are not making calls over-seas to Islamic Countries to known terrorist groups, then I dought you will be called a "Terror suspect". I think we should have been doing these wiretaps BEFORE 9/11...maybe it then could have been prevented. We do not know how many possible terror attacks that have been prevented since 9/11. I trust the current administration and its policies.
dasmi
Member
It does not matter what ties I have with whom! Wiretaps on American citizens are illegal without a warrant. If someone is suspected of having ties to terrorism, get a warrant. End of story.
I don't trust the current administrator, or the previous one, or the one before that.
No, our government should've been paying closer attention after Beruit, and the first WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole.
You're right, we don't. Maybe 100, maybe none.
I don't trust the current administrator, or the previous one, or the one before that.
dasmi said:
Talk to Mr. Klinton on paying closer attention to national security who it was proven that we could have had bin laden during his term instead of getting head from Monica.
So basically what you are trying to say that it is ok to have talks with known terrorist organizations that could threaten the national security of our country and it is illegal for the government to try to prevent that...I am really confused. I could keep going on, but I'm not.
Have a great and safe new year.
- Status