undercover surveillance was responsible for preventing attacks on the Sears tower and the Brooklyn bridge, both of which would have caused heavy damage. this surveillance was back us Conservatives, so now we're the bad guy right? I guess we should have let terrorists destroy those two instead of minimally violating the rights of suspected criminals. which course would have been better.
2006-10-13 11:22:32 · 8 answers · asked by kill_muslim_kids 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Get back to me when you read the CONSTITUTION!!!!!!
2006-10-13 11:27:18 · answer #1 · answered by linus_van_pelt68 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The problem I have is with the lack of oversight. I could take your word for it that terrorist plots have been foiled despite your lack of any links or other corroborating evidence. You could take the word of whoever you heard it from. We could all take the word of "president" Bush that he won't misuse information gathered through secret surveillance, but when a man starts his term by stealing an election it doesn't do much to inspire trust. And: Mr. (or Ms.) liberals are weak, don't we have enough wars going already? Do you really believe that all liberal ideas are bad and all conservative ideas are good? If so what a tiny world you must inhabit.
2006-10-13 18:42:17 · answer #2 · answered by socrates 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Until March 2009, the undercover surveillance will keep us as safe as possible. Who knows after wards, but I want my family safe & do not care how happy the terrorists & their friends are.
2006-10-13 18:28:42 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you really need the patriot act to do surveillance on a
building or bridge? Lame.
2006-10-13 18:28:54 · answer #4 · answered by Calee 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Benjamin Franklin said that when a society gives up freedom to gain security they wind up losing both. Fear is a good excuse to get people to give up precious freedom. The Patriot Act violates the constitution which makes our country great.
2006-10-13 18:32:25 · answer #5 · answered by irongrama 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Can you mangle the truth any more? You have no basis to say "undercover surveillance was responsible". You have no facts, no links, no nothing. It would be just as right to say their kid brother tattled on them.
2006-10-13 18:46:01 · answer #6 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every member of Congress who voted for this thing.
I would rather have my rights than security.
2006-10-13 18:37:50 · answer #7 · answered by Nunya B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah, screw the constitution .. we dont need it anymore ... just bushy boy and his cronies will protect us .. i feel so safe now....
2006-10-13 18:28:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋