Would you support Bush's surveillance program if...?

Question

It would prevent another Sep 11 or some other attack similar such as the one that almost happened but thanks to superb British intelligence did not.

Answer 1

This is a great question. How much of our civil liberty are we willing to sacrifice for the safety of ourselves, children and community?

I'd like our government to be able to profile terrorists in airports, and all points of entry. However, I would want strict oversight and review of any wire taps of domestic U.S. Citizens to prevent and/or uncover abuse. I would have HIGH penalties for the abuse of this power if any President or official were to target his political enemies. Penalties would involve jail time and a loss of pensions etc... though I'd still afford Presidents appropriate security when they get out of Prison if such a event ever occured.

MORE TO POINT,As far as the court case in the news today, where messages were INTERCEPTED w/ communications with those OUTSIDE our country ...I'm okay with the President intercepting those messages.

I look at it this way. We grant our President (rightfully) the ability to bomb a foreign city in order to protect our country. We should allow him to intercept messages that we believe are a threat to our country as well.

One must guard our civil liberties, but the President does in my opinion have the responsibilty and INHERENT POWER (as George Washington, Lincoln, FDR have used), to protect our country.

I believe Bush has poorly handled his explanation...not involving the minority party (democrats) into the discussion on what lengths he can go under FISA.

His stance in Guantanemo adds to further distrust...pushing the envelope. However, I am willing to grant the government some significant powers to protect our country...and there is no time to go to a judge in many cases to get a court order when tipped of a call coming in, that could prevent a 9-11 or dirty bomb or even nuclear (suit case bomb) or other tragedy in the future.

The situations for which such powers are allowed should be clearly defined and violators of the public trust should be dealt with harshly...but with due process under the law.

Answer 2

No, no longer interior the least. If he have been utilising it for a Watergate type operation i might. yet something Bush or the different President does interior the way of survailance to provide up terrorist from attacking lower back is fantastic with me. Liberals and different Democrats mentioned he did no longer do sufficient until eventually now 9/11 and now the comparable individuals are asserting he's doing too plenty. In gentle of all the flaws Clinton might have finished and did no longer concerning UBL he ought to have been taken out and shot. i'm greater in choose if somebody doing some thing to objective and superb a concern than i'm heading off doing something in worry of being incorrect. What he lied approximately grow to be inconsequental. What ought to the Republicans had finished if he had only mentioned, "Yep I have been given a *******. So?" yet no person even bill Clinton can arise infront of God and absolutely everyone and say, "I not at all had intercourse with that lady." whilst he KNEW he did and get via with it. And OBTW the Democrats failure to oust Clinton for my section value them the 2000 election. they did no longer have a sitting President working for workplace and that they could no longer declare any ethical highground. That on my own might have given them what they mandatory to take Florida. once you're thinking approximately it, why could no longer Gore carry Tennessee or Arkansas? the two of those states might have made Florida a mote component.

Answer 3

The tools for fighting terrorists are already in place including procuring wiretaps legally. Letting them run roughshod over the Constitution is a mistake.
The British did not get their intell. illegally or from wiretaps.
The Pakistanies tipped them off.

Answer 4

NO, No, No, The proper warrants would have issued on the dot. Bush and company, don't want to comply with the law because the know very well that the want to wiretap with out a legal or ethical warrant so they will have carte blanche to abuse the law if it so pleases them!

Answer 5

I would support anything that would stop another 9-11 attack! I'm still not over 9-11!

Answer 6

Yes. The same people that hate the wire tapping are the same people that will sue the government for not protecting them. If you ask the people that were victims of 911, I'm sure that they would have been all for wiretapping if it would have saved their lives!

Answer 7

Not if it's conducted illegally.

Especially when it could just as easily have been done according to the existing laws.

The ends, however laudable, do not justify criminal means when other options are available.

Answer 8

no i would not

due to the fact that it violates the very notions this country was founded on

protecting freedom at the cost of freedom
it just doesnt add up

Answer 9

That would be a Peric victory; a victory won at too great a cost.

Answer 10

"Those who give up their essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."
Ben Franklin