Scenario: Special forces troops in Afghanistan are observing a known terrorist. They tap his telephone. The terrorist picks up the phone and dials a number. After a couple seconds, the call connects to a number in Pakistan. The spec ops listen and gather valuable intelligence. The terrorist hangs up and calls another number. After a couple seconds, the call connects to a number in the U.S. What should the spec ops do:
1. Continue monitoring the call and gathering intelligence on the U.S. citizen that answered the phone (without a warrant).
2. Stop monitoring the call, call the FISA court, wait a few hours for a warrant.
Heres a clue: one of the option leads to terrorist being arrested. The other option leads to a nuke going off in New York and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Choose wisely.
2006-08-18 07:31:06 · 11 answers · asked by Aegis of Freedom 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
if your question is just a re-worded endorsement of the nsa program, you should phrase it as such and try not to be so vague. many would support the administration's spying program. otherwise, you should probably do more research about the fisa court and not take the word of some pundit on a talk radio station (liberal or conservative). plus, unless you are 1) a terrorist or 2) a federal agent, it's unlikely that you would be so adamant about such a cut-and-dried answer. look up the history of the fisa court, why and when it was created, as well as whom and what it protects. and, here's a nugget to educate those whose trigger responses show they, too, misunderstand the gravity of any government program: since 2003, the administration has sought 18,000+ warrants for spying; only five were denied. so, it makes it a little difficult to believe that the nsa had problems getting approval from the fisa court. your question and its answers ignore many gray areas that respondents (and you) have a right to know. until you are further educated about the government (not just by what you hear in the media, but by reading a LOT of things), you should stay away from biased questions/answers.
2006-08-18 08:13:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Easy..
Republican - 1. Definitely
Democrat - 2. We hate Bush more than terrorism
coragryph- you make a nice statement .. but they cannot "act" on these calls until a search warrant is approved. So same scenario - judge is on vacation and other fed. judges gone home ,can't locate one till tomorrow at 10am , targeted area to be hit at 8am....BOOM.. NSA is not interested in Domestic calls unless they are to or from an known terrorist or group. I believe the President is in the right and National Security should be a priority.
2006-08-18 08:06:21 · answer #2 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Continue monitoring the call
And then get a warrant within 72 hours after they start monitoring.
Just like FISA already allows. Your "clue" doesn't change the equation.
The laws as enacted already allow for exactly this situation. They allow us to continue monitoring and then apply for a warrant later.
So, given that option 1 can be accomplished by following the laws, what point are you trying to make.
Because what you're essentially saying is that they're justified in ignoring the law, even though they can accomplish exactly the same things with the same results by following the law.
2006-08-18 07:39:14 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If I lived in the U.S. at present, and thank the good Creator I do not, I would certainly yield to this kind activity, #1 obviously. America has a very bad enemy in Islam with few friends and more suspicious allies. The world is on edge with multi - level power struggles everywhere. Who knows when and where a significant bomb will be detonated?
2006-08-18 07:53:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. Illegal wire tapping should be the least of our concerns with the current administration.
There are so many more.
2006-08-18 08:07:07 · answer #5 · answered by Sam 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You premise is off....
It is illegal for the government to tap United Statesians within the US. It IS NOT illegal to tap the phones of presumed enemies, if those enemies happen to talk to a United Statesian the legality of the wire tapping WOULD NOT be affected.
2006-08-18 07:37:30 · answer #6 · answered by Eli 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
while i think my choice is not going to effect new york in any form, I would cast my vote for number one. terrorist are scum, and will be defeated.. GOD bless America
2006-08-18 07:40:17 · answer #7 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
stop making sense.you'll drive the libs on here even buggier than they are already.
2006-08-18 07:37:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
IF LIBS WERE IN CHARGE...THEY WOULD OFFER THEM ASSISTANCE ON THE LINE.
2006-08-18 07:48:50 · answer #9 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1, obviously
And that was my opinion before your question, too.
2006-08-18 07:37:05 · answer #10 · answered by obviously_you'renotagolfer 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋