[csmusaret]

Okay. The NSA intercepts a terrorist's phone call. After listening for a while they learn that the other person is in the US. At this point the Democrats say hang up and get a warrant. Pres. Bush says go ahead and listen. If we need to follow up on this person we can then ask for a warrant. I just don't see how this is illegal.

[Firefigher NC]

It's not.

[lugsoul]

Nope. They don't say hang up and get a warrant. They say comply with FISA, and go get a warrant within 72 hours, but you can keep listening while you do so.

If you place the decision on who is deserving of being eavesdropped solely in the hands of the eavesdropper, you no longer have any protection against eavesdropping by your government.

[Cboldt]

Okay. The NSA intercepts a terrorist's phone call. After listening for a while they learn that the other person is in the US. At this point the Democrats say hang up and get a warrant. Pres. Bush says go ahead and listen. If we need to follow up on this person we can then ask for a warrant. I just don't see how this is illegal.

The international call involving a known terrorist is a slam dunk "okay to surveil" without a warrant, even when the other side is in the US. I don't think the DEMs are saying "don't listen to that call until you get a warrant."

The question is how do we handle the person on the US end, after that call is terminated? You indicate that you think a warrant is required. I think President Bush disagrees with you. I think it's the allegation of warrantless surveillance of US persons other than their international calls that is being discussed.

I'd like to see the question in the survey - from your comment, it sounds as though you may have sided with the majority.

[Cboldt]

1. Should the Bush administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?

56-43-2 not sure

2d. Party affiliation

Strongly GOP - 13
Moderatly GOP - 27
Independent - 8
Moderately DEM - 32
Strongly DEM - 20

The question is ambiguous, IMO. If the question is should the government be able to tap the terrorsit end, virtually everyone will say YES. If the question is should the government be able to target the US end without a warrant, the answer would be different.

Monitoring -only- international calls and -only- those where one end is a known terrorist will not be a tough issue for the President to sell to the people or to Congress. That's why I think the surveillance at issue is broader than that.