What's wrong with a little oversight to quell the fears of abuse? Is there something wrong with having independent officials monitor the eavesdropping program? The way Bush et al act, you would think they have something to hide.
2006-09-05 12:50:16 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Best answer to this is, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like one, it probably is...my guess is your suspicions about them hiding something will be found to be true some day.
2006-09-11 17:06:43 · answer #1 · answered by Mark L 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it isn't a matter of law enforcement. The monitoring is being done by a DoD agency, the NSA. That is a military matter, and information collected will be used for military purposes to target terrorist cells. It is not used for arresting people and prosecuting them. In a court of law, it would be inadmissable.
If he were monitoring people for law enforcement purposes, then yes, he'd need all the warrants and such. And that's what the Constitution does, protects us against government prosecution. But this is not for proseuction or legal purposes. THe information gathered is used for military intelligence purposes.
2006-09-05 19:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by BrianthePigEatingInfidel 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Its all about speed. Terrorists move quick. OBL has been on the run for years now. He won't stay in one place too long for fear he'll be caught. So, when someone in this country gets a call from or places a call to a known member of a terrorist organization, I would really like for someone to be listening to that phone call. Since I never hear from terrorists, I think its a long shot that Uncle Sam is going to be listening to my calls. If you aren't hearing from terrorists, same thing.
My question to any of you is why would you want to protect terrorists?
Jeremy, its spelled 'moron'. And get over the vote thing already. If you're smarter than the Supreme Courst Justices, you'd better get up there quick before they do something REALLY stupid...
2006-09-12 09:13:08 · answer #3 · answered by Michael E 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is no reason why not - there are special courts set up just for this thing.
it's not Bush, by the way - it is some law enforcement or spook dude with the Dept of Homeland Security.
2006-09-12 17:02:01 · answer #4 · answered by Prof. Cochise 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt he has anything to hide..Why do we need anymore hands in the situation then we need? That would just cost tax payers more . I do believe we better do something soon or it will be to the detriment
of the USA! The longer we wait the more likely trouble will strike again... We are in war and people are worried about abuse? Come on now! I think we better be more worried about who's here which boils down to immigration problems....
2006-09-12 15:48:05 · answer #5 · answered by blahblah 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
George W. Bush is a moran. He should be impeached and executed for high treason of the United States of America.
Hes too stupid to think, he paid his way through elementry, middle, high school. and college, if not he would be stuck in the first grade!
He was never elected either time. He LOST the popular vote TWICE!
2006-09-09 18:08:15 · answer #6 · answered by Jeremy© ® ™ 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because the law enabling the program was passed by Congress.... ergo, check and balance. The judiciary is not needed because it is NOT a question of legality.
Stop listening to the media and research the topic for yourself.
2006-09-05 19:53:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
He has the power to see fit,if it's a threat to America's security.You are not a threat are you?
2006-09-12 20:18:50 · answer #8 · answered by Rather be dead than red... 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He can tap my phone. Lordy! Is he gunna be bored to tears!!!
2006-09-05 19:56:28 · answer #9 · answered by Albannach 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we've got nothing to hide, who cares who listens in on our conversations? I don't. Listen away.
2006-09-05 19:58:38 · answer #10 · answered by S&S 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋