Posted on 02/07/2006 6:45:47 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
I hereby expressly consent to the NSA eavesdropping on any telephonic, Internet or other electronic forms of communications I may have -- whether I initiate or am on the receiving end of the communication -- with any person or persons the government has reasonable basis to conclude is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
This spying is absolutely necessary and we must use every weapon we can against the terrorists who would harm us.
That said, the potential for abuse of the type liberals are worried about does exist -- not so much under this administration, but perhaps under the next one. Soem monitoring and oversight, perhaps an explicit laying out of the circumstances in which this power can and cannot be used, may be appropriate, to allow this necessary function to go forward while at the same time rieining in the potential for abuse.
agreed. While the spying a crucial element of the anti-terrorist fight, you're absolutely right that the possibility of corruption and tyranny are there...but they always are. We will always need to guard againt politicians who would use government power for their own benefit.
What I don't understand is why anyone would want to take the authority away from the President to protect us all and give that ultimate authority to some judge who says yes or no.
It used to be that we didn't trust government very much around here. I still don't.
Liberals and Democrats fancy themselves the defense attorneys for Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein.
Unbelievable, aint it?
I can see it now...
Judge: "Do you mean to tell me that you initiated surveillance of this man based on an intercepted telephone conversation with a known Al Qaeda agent overseas without a warrant?"
Agent: "Yes, but..." (The agent was about to say that the man had one hundred and fifty pounds of homemade explosives in his possession when he was arrested.)
Judge: "No buts! The evidence against this man is inadmissable. This case is dismissed. Next time, obtain the proper warrants for surveillance before seizing evidence."
Makes one wonder who it is they are protecting? 'a Q' must have some high dollar donors on their speed dial.
point taken...but at the same time, i see that this is a new kind of enemy and a different kind of war than what's been fought in the past. I see this spying as necessary, but you're right to maintain a healthy level of distrust...but we can't allow our lack of trust in the government to impede them from doing all that they can to protect us...as a conservative, that's one of the pillars of government - strong national defense, and I see this as part of that.
I haven't seen anyone dispute that, the question is how are we deciding what sort of intercepts meet those criteria, and how do we go looking for them in the first place.
Apparently nobody outside the NSA and the White House - including elected officials who under our laws are charged with oversight of such operations - actually knows WHAT the parameters of the current interceptions policy are, and that's one of the reasons that some Republicans in Congress are concerned about this, they are starting to suspect that they have been systematically misled by the Administration as to what's actually been going on.
This Administration is been making very sweeping claims about the extent of Presidential prerogatives to operate independent of Congressional and judicial oversight and control, and ultimately such claims are sustainable only to the extent that such powers are not abused. Even one major example of clear misconduct (for example, using such powers for partisan political purposes) would likely focus intense congressional scrutiny on such programs, and IMO history strongly suggests that in the case of any administration - Democratic or Republican - as politically aggressive as this one such abuses are almost certain to occur.
And once that happens the Administration's policy of claiming sweeping powers to conduct surveillance without Congressional oversight probably ends up making us less secure.
Because that's what the Constitution says. There's a reason we don't grant absolute power to the President.
So where was all this "the President needs to wiretap everyone" hype when Clinton was in office and the World Trade Center was first attacked?
I like OReilly's point that this is a military issue and not a civilian issue so drop it libs...
If Clinton had been more serious about counterterrorism, we probably would not have had a second World Trade Center attack.
Does that answer your question?
So you would have been A-OK with Bill Clinton wiretapping Americans? 'Cause that's not what the consensus opinion was on FR back when they toyed with the idea.
Just pointing out how opinion on presidential power did a 180 on this site when the clock hit 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2001.
All Bush needs to do it go to a judge and get a warrant, like we've been doing for covert surveillance for years, and there wouldn't be any issue at all.
Reminder, we were not at war when Clinton was the President
The bottom line is...who are liberals really looking out for?
Themselves, this is not about wiretaps or security, this is a fight between two branches of our government that believe they should be running different branches of our government.
The senators say they should, the President says he should - the law covers congress, the Constitution covers the President.
Sadly our congress does not recall that it is their job to pass Constitutional laws,
Two points:
1) So all those airstrikes and troops overseas were a figment of my imagination?
2) The Constitution does not nullify itself whenever troops are engaged. If that's the case, why shouldn't Bush confiscate the firearms of everyone who's made a phone call to Pakistan?
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.