POLL: Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance...?

Capital News ^ | 12/19/2005 | wildbill

[wildbill]

This poll is referred to on the C-Span organization.

Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance without court order?

[wildbill]

Worried about warrantless searches?

A much more intrusive and encompassing form of warrantless search goes on at airports daily with not only your baggage searched, but your person and even your shoes. And the SCt has found this does NOT violate the constitution.

And how about random searches of peoples bags and backpacks in the NY subways. Much more intrusive and much less targeted at potential Al Queda members.

In a time of war with terrorists and the potential of WMD, the theoretical must bend to the demands of the practical.

If a monitored conversation with one overseas terrorist leads to the unveiling of terrorist cells here in America, I think the exigencies of wartime trump.

[phs3]

The fourth amendment only applies to criminal statutes.

They do not apply to acts of war after declarations have been made by congress. (YES we have declared war, twice congress has granted the President the ability to use force. The first Iraq war, which never really ended while Sadam was lobbing missiles at our jet right up to when congress granted war powers in 2002)

If you are aiding the enemy in wartime, you are a traitor and loose your citizenship if naturalized. I am not really sure what happens to your status if your born here, but in my opinion you should be in front of a firing squad PDQ.

Besides, These wiretaps were done to calls originating in or going to a foreign country. Which I think falls under the NSA's jurisdiction regardless of war or not.

[Wolfie]

They should ask, Did you agree with President Clinton when he did the same thing?

Hey, Everybody does it! An excuse you wouldn't accept from your teen-ager, but what the hell.

[Eagles Talon IV]

No disrespect here but your position made in a way that is unyielding to circumstances is, imo, totally insane. WE are not talking about people who are plotting to rob a bank here, we are talking about people who, if they could would gladly detonate a nuke or 2 or more in places that would cause the maximum damage and loss of life. Again, your claim that there are no circumstances under which specific targets can be targeted without taking the time to acquire a court order is really mind boggling.

[Realism]

No disrespect here but your position made in a way that is unyielding to circumstances is, imo, totally insane.

I do understand the difficulty of the situation, but I do have a problem with the illegality of the government secretly spying on American citizens. I guess the only way around it would be to notify people via recording that their international calls may be monitored for national security reasons. That way they have a choice and if they want privacy they can always write a letter.

[Eagles Talon IV]

First of all this surveillance is not done unless the target is either known al qaeda or other terrorist organization, or connected to someone who themselves is connected and or otherwise aiding a terrorist organization. Given the nature of this enemy and given the narrowness of these surveillance tactics I see absolutely NO problem with what is going on here. The presidents responsibility is above all else to insure for the safety and security of the American people. It is NOT even reasonable to put the privacy of one who is almost certain to be up to no good over the aforementioned security issue.

[Realism]

First of all this surveillance is not done unless the target is either known al qaeda or other terrorist organization, or connected to someone who themselves is connected and or otherwise aiding a terrorist organization.

I believe that technology has far surpassed your understanding of how the government is eavesdropping and evaluating telecommunications traffic.

[phs3]

Juries aren't used in matters of national security during wartime for trials against enemies of the state.

And the 4th amendment only applies to criminal law, NOT TREASON:SABOTAGE.

If an individual acts against this country, conspires with a foreign aggressor during a declared war, that individual looses his status as a citizen.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"I believe that technology has far surpassed your understanding of how the government is eavesdropping and evaluating telecommunications traffic."

My claims are those that have been stated by the Administration. Your proof that the surveillance has been otherwise done is.....?

[azhenfud]

Can you cite the Constitution's reference to that effect? that any citizen loses the right to be tried?

[Realism]

Your proof that the surveillance has been otherwise done is.....?

No proof, just commonsense. I know how I would do it. They should continue to do it, legally of course. Bush is guilty of doing the right thing, the wrong way, thats all. It's not something that can't be forgiven quickly if corrected properly.

[Eagles Talon IV]

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

[azhenfud]

"If an individual acts against this country, conspires with a foreign aggressor during a declared war, that individual looses his status as a citizen."

That's Horse Hockey. America cannot constitutionally deprive anyone of due process of law. The ONLY exception are uniformed service personnel which are under military law.

---

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution

ARTICLE FIVE
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[lugsoul]

"The fourth amendment only applies to criminal statutes."

This is utterly, completely false. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. It is generally advisable, when you are posting statements masquerading as fact, to actually try to determine whether there is any truth in them or not.

If one followed your logic, one must conclude that it is completely acceptable for the state to barge in and search your house, and seize items in your possession, as long as they don't charge you with a crime. That is pure idiocy.

[OKIEDOC]

Can you show me where in the constitution that a president has no authority to authorize the intercepting international calls from terrorists.

I would expect the Dimocrats doing something like this domestically to win elections at any costs.

[Peach]

From a Chicago Tribune article today:

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

And, I note, that every president since at least Jimmy Carter has maintained the authority to use whatever means at their disposal to find enemies of the United States, including Clinton who used warrantless wiretaps and physical searches of homes.

The left just loves to pretend that this is all new, what's going on and the truth of the matter is, it's not new at all. Their selective moral indignation and amnesia is actually amusing to watch.

[phs3]

http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

[Tarpon]

Why bother, Bush isn't conducting domestic surveillance. Play on words.

[JFC]

what is the point. Du and move on have nothing to do bu call cspan and pick stupid polls to hack.

[azhenfud]

From your link:

"It appears the USCIS runs into difficulty with the federal courts when the USCIS revokes someone’s citizenship without giving the accused his or her day in court (no matter how blatant the violation of the law, see - Challenge to INS Denaturalization Procedure ).

In other words, the only way you are going to lose your US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization is in a federal court and by a federal judge, who is appointed for life, makes good money, and is answerable to no politician or government bureaucrat no matter how on popular the judge's decision turns out to be."