Skip to comments.
POLL: Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance...?
Capital News ^
| 12/19/2005
| wildbill
Posted on 12/19/2005 9:53:25 AM PST by 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?
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: poll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
To: wildbill
then it's getting better, it's 46% yes now.
To: wildbill
I learned yrs ago all these polls are skewed, we never win in these polls except maybe FoxNews. So I stopped wasting my time.
42
posted on
12/19/2005 10:36:30 AM PST
by
shield
(The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instructions.Pr 1:7)
To: BikerNYC
why should they have to, if there are already laws saying they don't have too.
43
posted on
12/19/2005 10:36:47 AM PST
by
phs3
To: wildbill
...Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance without court order?...
I feel the same about Bush doing it as I did when Clinton did it.
To: phs3
Because of the Fourth Amendment.
45
posted on
12/19/2005 10:39:02 AM PST
by
BikerNYC
(Modernman should not have been banned.)
To: lugsoul
Though you wouldn't know it from FR, believing that the Federal government is constrained by the provisions of the Constitution - and should be - is not a 'liberal' idea.
But it's Bush! We can trust him. He seems like such a nice guy.
[Don't ask me what we do with this precedent if the next guy isn't so nice.]
To: trubluolyguy
If you listened to the President's press conference you would know that this was only international calls covering known terrorists suspects.
47
posted on
12/19/2005 10:40:08 AM PST
by
stocksthatgoup
("It's inexcusable to tell us to 'connect the dots' and not give us the tools to do so." G W Bush)
To: The_Republican
"What did Thomas Jefforson say about trading freedom for security...."
That doesn't matter anymore because we're at WAR. :)
48
posted on
12/19/2005 10:41:13 AM PST
by
dljordan
To: trubluolyguy
It's war. Things change during a war. Roosevelt did far more in WW2 and ALL of it was upheld by the USSC.
To: stocksthatgoup
To: stocksthatgoup
If you listened to the President's press conference you would know that this was only international calls covering known terrorists suspects.
Trust but verify?
If it comes from the government, I don't believe it.
After all , our president told us all to trust him, Harriet Meirs was the best candidate in the USA for the SC.
51
posted on
12/19/2005 10:46:02 AM PST
by
WhiteGuy
(Vote for gridlock)
To: Your Nightmare
If the specifics of this operation are to make sure the target is directly connected to known terrorism and we are at war with terrorists then what is the problem? It is not as if he has taken it upon himself to spy on anybody he chooses, There are strict guidelines and regular re evaluations of the program by legal authorities as well as regular reports to Congressional leaders.
You people seem to think the Constitution is a suicide document.
To: stocksthatgoup
If you listened to the President's press conference you would know that this was only international calls covering known terrorists suspects. Then whats the problem with getting a warrant? Other than they may get turned down for abuse.
53
posted on
12/19/2005 10:47:03 AM PST
by
Realism
(Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
To: Eagles Talon IV
It's war. Things change during a war. Roosevelt did far more in WW2 and ALL of it was upheld by the USSC.
Yes, roosevelt was the one who wanted to pack the court with his cronies too, right?
54
posted on
12/19/2005 10:47:06 AM PST
by
WhiteGuy
(Vote for gridlock)
To: ravingnutter
Don't trouble with the facts. The liberals have taken their pratfall off the turnip truck and are demanding outrage.
55
posted on
12/19/2005 10:48:17 AM PST
by
Jack of all Trades
(Never underestimate the speed in which the thin veneer of civilization can be stripped away.)
To: stocksthatgoup
~~"If you listened to the President's press conference you would know that this was only international calls covering known terrorists suspects."~~
No it wasn't. I'm telling you it's a conspiracy. CONSPIRACY I say. The FBI wants to know how my date went the other night and how much milk and eggs I plan on picking up on the way home. THEY are out to get us. It is a conspiracy.
BEWARE BIG BROTHER. They are watching you. Put tin foil on your head. That helps deter the satellite radar listening device.
Conspiracy theory sarcasm /off
56
posted on
12/19/2005 10:49:47 AM PST
by
HOTTIEBOY
(I'm your huckleberry)
To: presently no screen name
Voted no.
I haven't seen anything on this thread that can't be done with a court order in place.
57
posted on
12/19/2005 10:50:58 AM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com)
To: trubluolyguy
If Usama bin Laden's lieutenants are calling people within the United States, I'd hope that we'd be on it right away, regardless of who is in power.
During the President's speech, he stated that for time sensitive matters they'll use the immediate wire tap, and then go to FISA court for long term monitoring. Here's why that makes sense:
If the Soviet Army had invaded the United States, would you expect the NSA to get a court order to monitor their communications back to Moscow? The transnational Al Qaida cells represent a military incursion onto U.S. soil, and under Article II of the Constitution, the President can direct action against them.
The FBI would still put in FISA court warrants for domestic calls, where innocent U.S. persons may be monitored. Still, Al Qaida lieutentants in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia aren't calling people in the U.S. for fun. While the court order itself could be done in a few hours, getting together all the information needed to make it pass muster could take days or weeks, and then translating the calls could take hours or days.
If the calls are of intelligence value, the FBI will want to tap the calls, and you can bet that the court orders will be in in short order. But the FBI would never know about these guys unless someone else is able to catch their incoming calls from out of country in the first place. All this program seems to do is to bridge a gap that the law didn't adequately cover.
58
posted on
12/19/2005 10:51:29 AM PST
by
Steel Wolf
(* No sleep till Baghdad! *)
To: BikerNYC
The 4th amendment only applies to US citizens in good standing. Once you conspire with the enemy, that right disappears. You yourself become the enemy.
"persons, houses, papers, and effects" probably doesn't apply to email and cellphone conversations anyway. Besides, none of this info can be used in court, so it is cant be used in prosecutions anyway, only for following these islamojacka$$es to make sure US CITIZENZ aren't murdered.
59
posted on
12/19/2005 10:51:29 AM PST
by
phs3
To: wildbill
The poll is based on a lie
Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance without court order?
The President did not allow "domestic surveillance without court order." He ruled that international communications that involved calls either to or originated by people in the US from suspected Al Qaeda sources overseas were part of the existing power to conduct surveillance of international communications.
This is not tough. You have to go through some outrageous and convulated gymnastics to construe this the way the old media and traitor dems do.
60
posted on
12/19/2005 10:52:20 AM PST
by
Phsstpok
(There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson