Should our government be allowed to tap our phones in the name of national security?

Question

Right now there is a big debate whether our president has the right to tap into phone, email and other mediums to thwart terrorist activities in order to prevent another 9/11 disaster, would you give up some of your freedom of privacy to allow this?

Answer 1

No and the Bush administration should do time with the general population in federal prison for violation of the constitution! Congress has never officially made a declaration of war!

Answer 2

I don't know why everyone is getting so upset over this... they've been tapping out phone calls for years. It's not that people listen to every conversation, but that if you say certain key words... whatever it may be that they are looking for, like "bomb", or some chemical name that goes into a bomb, or whatever... then that triggers a machine over in New Mexico or Arizona wherever it is and it records the conversation and someone listens to it to see if it is a real threat or not... it's not like while your having phone sex or talking to your family members about whatever... or even business calls are being monitored... that is unless you're talking about bringing illegal materials over the border or assassinating the president or blowing up a public building. Anyway, even if you were discussing such a thing, who cares who listens to it and determines that it is harmless... which it is most likely. If not.. .wouldn't you want someone to catch these people before they do something horrible? Personally, I'd rather they filter a few thousands calls that have trigger words and maybe prevent one horrible thing from happening, than having the comfort of knowing they'll never listen to a call (which is not really comforting to me)... an average citizen will probably never have a call overheard anyway... everyone is overreacting.

Answer 3

I don't see the problem if Americans want to be safe they need to let the NSA do there job, granted it should be regulated so that they can do there job and yet maintain peoples privacy. The real question i think people should ask them selves is why are they worried are they doing something wrong that they should not be doing. People complain about there rights, they need to remember that freedom isn't free everyone needs to make sacrifices for there country so that it can protect them from another attack like 9/11 ever happening again, the only people that seem worried about this issue are those that have some thing to hide.

Answer 4

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

It is fully uncontitutional, the flag is burning !

Just like the Patriot Act !
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html

Or Echelon : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060816152509AAyk9H6
Or H.a.a.r.p. / Chemtrails : http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4707037153987098594&q=haarp

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring(Nazi) 1946 Nuremberg Trials

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller: Statement to the Unitied Nations Business Council in September 1994

Answer 5

"Freedom of privacy"?

Well, if, during a war, I had extensive and questionable communications with suspected enemies, don't you think it is reasonable that I should be investigates? And considering these are communications with one party not on American soil, which may be coming from a quickly changing communications source that has been identified as a legitimate subject of investigation, it only makes sense the government should tap in to make sure it isn't anything nefarious.

As for privacy - we are being violated a hell of a lot more than this thanks to the 16th amendment. The government has access to all your private and personal financial records. That violates my privacy a hell of a lot more than tapping calls from terrorist enemies!

Answer 6

No. Such activities are only valid according to existing laws. Or under new laws, if the govt wants to change the existing ones.

The point of the argument that most people seem to be missing is that the administration could have conducted the exact same surveillance program, to the same depth and degree, within the existing laws.

Bush didn't bypass the laws because they would have stopped him from doing what was necessary. He ignored the laws because he believes the executive is not bound by them. It's a pure power grab.

Everything the administration has done could have been done under the existing laws, just by following the proper procedures. Bush just wanted to ignore the laws because he didn't want to be bothered.

And that's not an acceptable reason.

Answer 7

It can be done LEGALLY by getting a court order, the president had absolutely no reason to break the law. Special courts have existed for at least 10 years where it is easy to get such warrants, but the president couldn't be bothered. The oath of the president is to Defend the Constitution, not to wipe his azz on it and flush it down the toilet.

Answer 8

The idea that giving up freedoms helps win the war on terror in my view is misguided. Of course I'm willing to arrive three hours early at the airport to have my baggage checked. The issue with wire taps is accountability and the Bush Administration shot themselves in the foot by implementing this program secretly. In the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended habeous corpus he did this by appealing to the other branches of Government because it was that important. He debated it with them and in the end they granted him permission to do it in an effort to preserve the unity of this nation. It was the opposite with the Executive Branch under Bush they implemented the program informed a handful of politicians and starting using the taps despite constitutional considerations. When they were exposed they argued Presidential privilege, it's necessity and accused someone of threatening national security. Instead of spending billions of dollars on this war in Iraq it should have been spent equipping airports, securing borders and student exchange programs. More importantly staffing the intelligence agencies to follow up on the leads they do get. If you recall one of the issues with the 9/11 commission was intelligence the United States had and disregarded. When we can properly apply the technologies we already have responsibly then, lets look at something as extreme as carte blanch wire tapping. I don't fear terrorists cells nearly as much as I fear bureaucratic cells they threaten our national security far more. It is them that deflects funding from the Homeland Security budget for New York, Florida and California. It's them that cuts military pay 33% for active service men and 60% of the benefit funding for their families cut. It's them considering shipping port deals with the UAE (United Arab Emerites). If this program was so important then the Administration had an obligation to unite the other branches of Government on the idea, legally. This President has used more signing statements then all other Presidents combined to subvert the balance of power in the constitution. That's what he tried doing with the warrentless wire tapping program attempting to tie it to executive powers as Commander and Chief.
He's wasted more time with secret programs and signing statements then he has securing borders, equipping service men or airports.

Answer 9

it would take a demonstration on each and every gasoline pump that in basic terms stated 'we don't supply A Sh** approximately You.......this message dropped at you via united states of america of america government' alongside with a $5 a gallon gasoline fee. severe gasoline expenditures look the only ingredient that gets the time-honored no longer-so-bright American pissed-off adequate to moan a sprint with reference to the government.

Answer 10

Yes, people who are receiving phone calls from terrorists should have their phone lines tapped.