Would conservatives be concerned about unauthorized wiretapping if a democrat was president?

Question

I would only become less concerned if a libertarian became president...but seriously, saying that you would harm John Kerry, or Al Gore, are you afraid that would be used against you? Because they could. They could do anything they wanted to with that freedom...scary, huh? Maybe you have nothing to hide, maybe they will say you do...

no, Svern, it doesn't. Look to the future, not the past...

Answer 1

Actually, Clinton tried to set up a wiretapping program with FISA oversight. Guess who was one of the biggest opponents? John Ashcroft. He called it illegal and violated the Constitution.

Kinda ironic considering that he helped set up a wiretapping program that violated the Constitution.

Answer 2

Good question! People say "would you let a president Hillary Clinton have the same power." I say, YES - whoever is elected obviously has the same power, whether I voted for them or not.

The argument the administration is making is that the surveillance - I don't think wiretaps are used since it's cell phones, but that's just a nitpick - is a constitutional exercise of the president's war powers. Signals intelligence, intercepts of enemy communications.

Bush did NOT, apparently, follow the FISA procedure. The argument there is that the law, not the president's action, is unconstitutional to the extent it limits the president's constitutional powers.

Time will tell as to who is correct.

Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted for clearly breaking the law - the Tenure of Office Act - passed by Congress. But that was held unconstitutional.

I say, why can't we use whatever measures FDR did in wartime? EXCEPT for the mass civilian internments. Surely the Constitution doesn't allow less now than it did then.

I like that test because it's relatively neutral - just do what we did then.

Again, time will tell how all this will be judged.

Answer 3

Are you talking about wiretapping or terroristic threats. You are not really allowed to say you are going to harm anyone even if it is within the confines of your house. Personally, I do not care if anybody listens in on my phone conversations, as long as they do not jump in the conversation. I have nothing to hide. If this program catches one or two terrorists, then it is worth it. Some people seem to think that lives lost are worth less than precious phone conversations. The odd thing is that all of the presidents have used wiretapping since Roosevelt but this is the first time we have heard about it.

Answer 4

That is the stupidest question, I am very Conservative, I would not care if a Democratic President need to do that in order to fight the war on terror, if we don't win the fight on information and track these assholes, and intercept their call, be ready for another attack, that information is the only thing between us and them, if we don't here what their up to, we are screwed, The president Dem or Rep. don't care about your stupid a*s calls to your girl friends, they want the calls that link them to terrorism. And I am sure they can tell the difference, most calls they monitor are probably in Arabic any way. Dam liberals anyway get real.

Answer 5

absolutely... if the shoe were on the other foot and we had a democrat as president but a Repub house and senate..

he'd be boiled in Oil !

but as they control all three along with the Judiciary.. I think we better all start wondering if we'll even have 2008 presidential elections.. seriously. It is in the Patriot acts one and two, that in a time of war the president by executive order can suspend elections..

The Decider has an agenda..
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/09/true-incompetence-or-feigned-idiocy.html

Answer 6

I think anyone should be concerned about unauthorized wiretapping, regardless of what side of the political fence they or the people doing the wiretapping are. It violates the Constitution and I do not see how that is a partisan issue at all - all Americans should be outraged at such a violation of their privacy regardless of their innocence or guilt.

Answer 7

The system is broken. The rats are in the corn.

Only by the creation of a radical reform party to close the loopholes and get the corporate lobbyist from funding the multi-billion hate campaigns can this country survive the coming battle with the third world as it unites to stop our imperialistic "globalization".

Answer 8

He wasn't suited. there have been many stuff he ignored out on like each the different presidents. the only candidate to even point out justice, crime prevention, reducing of crimes replaced into if i'm no longer incorrect Ralph Nader. He did no longer win however the between the worst issues in united statesa. has been the severe crime cost and no president or candidate even addresses that subject different than Nader. Reagan additionally busted the U.S. which replaced into an exceedingly undesirable element for them. It made them lose their protection and various of their women had to coach to prostitution. It wasn't all Reagan's fault yet he ought to have basically allowed them to come to a decision on their way and made united statesa. a extra appropriate place with the help of reducing crimes, scams.

Answer 9

They actually didn't. There were no protests or congressional hearings called when Clinton enacted the ECHELON system.

I would have just said "of course" had there not been this clear example of a government surveillance system enacted by a Democratic President.

Answer 10

Yes and the Democrats in the senate would be defending him. This 2 party system forces politicians to act in the intrest of the party and not the people.