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?
In instances where it is logistically impossible to get a court order --- or where a terror suspect uses a technological means to "jump" cell phone lines or internet access, I most certainly support surveillance WITHOUT a court order.
As long as the NSA agent applies for a court order IMMEDIATELY at the next conveinant opportunity.
In other words, I would rather see US operatives thwart an alQaeda attack rather than fall prey to technological "wall" that is simply being put up by enemies of the Bush War on Terror.
To me, it's like a cop chasing a bank robber into the bank robber's home. The cop doesn't have time to go and obtain a court order to look inside the bank robber's home.
So it is with terrorist hunters. Sometimes there aint time.
Of course, the first time an agent fails to apply for the court order, or abuses the process, there should be severe consequences to pay.
The question that needs answering is are we destroying this great nation and our values in the process of trying to save it?
I can see a liberal President using this precedent to assault on the Second Amendment rights of Americans. "we were only targeting the guns of those suspected of terrorism."
Intelligence collection isn't law enforcement. Say a Pakistan based Al Qaida facilitator calls someone in New York and passes the message 'I sent you the money by the normal way, continue with the preparations, and be careful'. The FBI would certainly want to know about that, and would submit a warrant through the FISA court to get the recipients phone tapped.
Now, suppose he had instead left the message 'Today is the day. Launch the attack, and kill as many infidels as you can'. The FBI would still want to know about it, but probably not so they could do long term electronic surveillance.
This program appears to exist to cover the gray area between intelligence collection and law enforcement. Trying to view it through only one lens won't give you the full picture.
Unless there is probable cause to believe that someone has done something wrong, I don't know how you say that the security of anyone is threatened by that individual. If there is probable cause, then the government can get a warrant.If they don't have probable cause, what do they have? Improbable cause?
Well, well. A wise guy. How about just answering my question with a yes or no. Think you can manage that?
By your way of thinking, those 8 German submarine (sabateur) spys who were captured on US soil during WWII should have been given bail, Mirandized, and let go on their merry way so as not to violate their rights.
Yes I know Miranda rights weren't initiated until the 60s, but what the hey, even Nazi's who are planning sabatage deserve their Constitutional rights.
/sarc
Not "has done something wrong". After the fact doesn't matter. If the crime has been committed then it cannot be undone and the needed time for a court order is no problem. These intercepts are supposed to gain info on and from people who are definitely connected to terrorists and are intended to PREVENT an attack. The president and AG have said it is a time factor and the intercept needs to be done NOW because the call is being made NOW. Time is of the essence and again it has been made clear that the target in every instance is known to have a connection to terrorism.
NO. It's always proven ANY authority given government not specifically and HIGHLY regulated is forever lost by the governed and soon abused. IOW, the authority granted the Bush Administration today can also be abused in subsequent administrations.
When we, as Americans, surrender our freedom to government from fear of terror, the terrorists will have then won.
And I'm shocked at the number of people signed up for FR who have not the vaguest notion what being at war means. Looks like it will take many more attacks on our country and way bigger than 9/11 for some to come to terms with reality. It would be nice to return to 9/10, but it's not going to happen because they are not going to quit until we're all dead.
How can anyone positively know that before violating the tap restraint laws?
In this country, our laws are supposedly founded on the presumption of innocence (unless the administration wants that particular provision trampled too). Tapping without a court warrant violates that presumption by surveillence procedures being initiated without any first test of evidence.
I hope you're never picked for duty on a jury.
Its easy to stand by principles when there is no risk involved. Terrorist should not be allowed to force us in giving up our most sacred principles. Its an opportunity show the world the value we put on justice and freedom, and the unparrallelled courage to stand by those values under any threat.
And I'm shocked at the number of people signed up for FR who have not the vaguest notion what being at war means.So when we win the "war on terror" we get our rights back? The only problem with that is we can never declare victory in a war against terror - it's perpetual war - so we never get our rights back.
Its a very tough question. In the end I'd have to say no. Their are certain values and freedoms that supersede security, and no matter what is done you can never guarantee the safety of everyone all of the time. While phone tapping is not a huge violation of my privacy, it is a slippery slope and if we get hit again we may just slide all the way down. Besides changing our ways thru fear is a victory for terrorism and we don't want that.
Oops I meant to say yes. Privacy, etc. does override security.
It's an academic argument that we lose our rights under the Constitution--if the Constitution no longer exists because the society has been destroyed by some form of WMD.
If we somehow captured Ben Laden with a telephone, it would be important to call/record every number on the speeddialer before his henchmen changed all the numbers.
Now 36% yes, 64% no.
The question that needs answering is are we destroying this great nation and our values in the process of trying to save it?"
I respect your argument, but can we turn it around and see if the corrollary works?
Can we save this great nation and our values if it is in the process of being destroyed and we fail to save it? What will be left after a WMD attack but a paper document in the abandoned National Archives?
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.