Do you think the USA should or should not listen to phone conversations of terrorists?

Question

It is a no brainer. They are not protected under the Constitution. They are planning to do harm to the citizens of this country.
Who in their "right mind" would be against this?

I would take the minor inconvenience of having my overseas phone call listened to if it meant that another 911 could be averted.
I do not fell anyone is out to get me. They are PROTECTING me!

Answer 1

I fully agree with you. Libs seem to think that their every thought, word, and deed is being documented by the government, and would rather see the country go up in smoke than to risk having their shopping list revealed to the White House.

Also, it's impossible for someone to be listening in on every conversation, there simply aren't enough agents. Computers do the drudge work using software programs that listen for key words, and that data is used in the hunt for terror suspects.

Answer 2

I hope they do listen to terrorists' conversations over the phone. I really wish they could prosecute them for their terrorist activity but if they do not have a warrant, then they won't be able to prosecute.

They are not protected under the constitution, you are correct. American citizens are however, are protected under the constitution. There is an issue as to whether an American citizen can be a terrorist then, and if they are a terrorist then do they have rights as a citizen too? Tim Mcveigh had rights as a citizen and so did Ted Kazinski, both were American citizens and terrorists.

Try to get an amendment to the constitution that allows for warrantless wiretapping, then it will be law and you people who support the government using its power to tap phone lines can stop griping about that fact that it is currently illegal. It is America, love it or leave it. :) The Patriot Act does NOT amend the Constitution.

Answer 3

The government has every right to listen, IF, and a big IF, they follow the law and leave our Constitutional rights alone. I am glad the Judge ruled against the methods the Administration has been using to violate our Rights and to impose power over good sense. You may sacrifice what you wish. Those of us who value our Constitution will not.

"The President's claim of executive authority to ignore the Fourth Amendment and violate federal laws in the name of protecting national security has no apparent limits. Under the Bush administration's argument, federal law enforcement could seemingly go into anyone's home, at any time, without a warrant by claiming that it might better catch terrorists. There is simply no obvious stopping point, and that's what makes the president's claim of broad executive power so alarming. Nor is there any reason to believe that warrantless wiretapping is needed to protect national security. The administration could have gone to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves more than 99 percent of all government requests for warrants. Under the procedures of that court, it even could have gotten the warrant after the surveillance had been done."

Answer 4

100% in favor.... good thing the Brits thought the same way, or we would have had another tragedy last week...... We should listen to anyone and everyone that may do this Country harm. If your a American Citizen or not! without a warrant , we don't have time to waste .... I am not worried about my rights I have nothing to hide , seems to me the ones that scream about there rights are the ones you should be looking at.

Answer 5

Who said Liberals were in their "right mind " ?
To get a warrant to listen in ,you must have evidence and how do you get the evidence without first listening for KEY WORDS or watching where calls are going or coming from ?
Human's are not envolved until a flag goes up on the computers that do the listening .

Answer 6

I think we absolutely should.

That's why we have laws that allow us to do that. They've been in place for almost 30 years. There's a secret court that exists just to authorize these wiretaps, a court that only the govt has access to. And for emergencies, the law allows warrantless wiretapping for 3-15 days, as long as the govt fills out the paperwork afterwards.

As for the rest, let me first correct a mis-statement. Everyone in the US is protected under the constitution. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, a resident or not, a terrorist or not. Why? Because many of the so-called "rights" under the Constitution are not rights granted to individuals -- they are limitations on government action. And those limitations apply regardless of who the government is going after.

Y'know what's stupid about most of the arguments I hear defending Bush's program? Those people never bothered to actually read the laws in question. Everything that Bush wanted to do could have been done legally. Everything. The entire surveillance program was allowable under the existing laws. It just would have required a bit more paperwork.

Bush didn't break the laws because he had to choose between procedure and getting things done. He broke the law because he couldn't be bothered with following. Everything that he wanted to do could have been done legally. He just didn't care about the law.

And that's not a valid reason to break the law.


{EDIT to greengunge} You don't think it matters that England has different laws than the US, so what is legal in England might not be legal here?

And as to your statement about the constitution, you almost got the quote right. Bush actually said "it's just a g*d*mn piece of paper". Which pretty much answers any questions as to his level of respect for the Constitution which this country is founded upon.

Answer 7

As far as I'm concerned the government can listen to all the phone call they can stomach (not that they'd pay attention to what they hear) as long as they get the proper warrants.

Had they been paying any attention, at all, in the first place, 9/11 could have been prevented.

Answer 8

I believe I'm in my right mind but your question is just a bit loaded. Whose to say the phone call is by a terrorists? I read most of the answers and would like to say I agree for the most part but on the Conservative side.

By the way.....liberal and Democrat used in the same sentence is an oxymoron. It's like saying wet water.

Answer 9

I think that we should listen to calls (e-mails ect) to be as safe as we can be. I don't think it is an issue unless it goes too far. What is too far. I remember Watergate-things like that bother me But the bad that could occur if we do not listen is much greater than the privacy someone could lose. Hey I always assumed someone could listen in anyway!

Answer 10

I am in favor of the USA listening in to the conversations of foreign terrorists. And that is perfectly legal. What is in question is the US government's right to listen in on the conversations of American Citizens without a warrant. Which is patently illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The FISA Act provides a mechanism by which the US Gov't can obtain a warrant without violating security. So there should be no reason to listen in on a US Citizen without a warrant. That is the only issue in question, and that is what the Federal Judge in Detroit recently ruled - that the US Gov't cannot conduct warrantless wiretapping in the USA.

Answer 11

What you are calling a terrorist is an alleged terrorist. The minute people come within our borders they are protected by the Constitution because the constitution is SUPPOSE to be the law of the land. If you will remember the German population gave up their rights by law and it ended in genocide. You need to stop listening to rhetoric and study history. The no brainers are people who don't know their rights and responsibilities and listen to right-wing politicians, like in Germany in 1936.