NSA Is all about catching terrorists not you calling your mom or whoever.
2006-08-18 13:20:23 · 17 answers · asked by Ah Ha 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Seems to the damnocrats reasoning for fighting this so hard is because they have something to HIDE. damnocrats=terrorist lovers= aiding and abetting!!!!!!
2006-08-18 13:29:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
Wiretapping should be allowed as followed by federal law. That means you need to have a warrant to tap someone's phone. As long as the NSA or whoever follows the law I am alright with it.
The NSA is currently playing six degrees of separation with our privacy and our rights. If you call someone, who calls someone, who calls someone who calls a suspected terrorist then you are on their list. Remember, all those guys n Britain were described by their neighbors as nice friendly guys. This means that normal people were probably calling them on a fairly regular basis. That there isn't any evidence against you, me or J.Q. Public overhere does not matter. If this is a nation of freedom and of laws, then the laws need to apply to everyone at all times.
2006-08-18 20:32:49 · answer #2 · answered by Atheist81 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wiretapping is allowed.
Under 50 USC 1801 (FISA) and 18 USC 2511 (Title III). There are secret courts the government can go to and get warrants, without the suspects ever being informed of the search. And in the three decades the FISA court has been in existence, they've rejected about three (3) warrant requests. Out of untold thousands of applications.
Not to mention that the existing laws allow for warrantless wiretapping. Up to 72 hours under any circumstances, or under 90 days after a formal declaration of war by Congress, or indefinitely if none of the parties is a citizen or resident of the US.
Everything Bush wanted to do with the wiretapping program could have been done legally, under the existing laws. All of it.
Bush didn't break the laws because he was forced to choose between security and procedure. He broke the laws simply because he couldn't be bothered to follow them.
2006-08-18 20:28:30 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wiretapping IS allowed, dum-dum. If the NSA thinks they have a bead on a terrorist, they can begin an immediate wiretap. They then have to go to the courts and show they have justification to be allowed to continue.
Bush is claiming they shouldn't have to go to the courts. There is no legal or logical basis for his claim. The problem is Bush and his team tell us they "know" who is in Al-Queda, just like they told us they "knew" all about Iraq's WMD's. They know if their "evidence" is ever held up to actual scrutiny, it will be exposed as being ridiculous, so they ***** and moan about how we need warrentless wiretaps.
Does that clear things up for you, sunshine?
2006-08-18 21:22:46 · answer #4 · answered by lamoviemaven 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wiretapping is allowed. It's warrantless wiretapping of Americans that is unconstitutional.
The essential thing that makes america worth protecting is the Constitution. Without the constitution, what makes us free and worth protecting? What makes us Americans? Warrantless wiretapping of Americans is so clearly unconstitutional, that if it was found to be legal there'd be no America left to protect.
2006-08-18 20:30:03 · answer #5 · answered by Charles D 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No it shouldn't... As the judge pointed out, it violates the 1st and 4th amendments... And it has not caught a single terrorist, stop eating up every word that comes out of Tony Snow's mouth.
2006-08-18 21:48:01 · answer #6 · answered by RATM 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if you want to catch the terrorist *before* they do something... much like the British did.. BTW they used wiretapping.
2006-08-18 20:31:10 · answer #7 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sure they should, right after they require that all firearms and ammo purchases be registered. Like you say... it's all about catching terrorists!
2006-08-18 20:32:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not without a warrant, I would hate to see a terrorist go because of no warrant. We shouldn't have to change a F***en thing for those terrorist.
2006-08-18 20:30:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
only when there is reasonable cause to believe that it will prevent a crime or solve a crime. check the Constitution especially admendments four, five, nine and ten.
2006-08-18 20:36:04 · answer #10 · answered by bearbait7351 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋