English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I don't believe we needed a court order to spy on the nazis during WW2.

2006-10-14 14:04:33 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Also, the only time spying without a court order is permitted is when one of the people in the conversation is a suspected terrorist who is not a citizen of the United States.

2006-10-14 14:17:49 · update #1

15 answers

EXACTLY!

And they say that it's because we were at war then, so that makes it different. Well, what do you call it when a country has been attacked for over almost thirty years? A tea party? We're at WAR with TERRORISM. Therefore, whatever has to be done to fight it, needs to be done.

2006-10-14 14:07:45 · answer #1 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2 1

The U.S. Congress ordered the White House and president to get a court order to spy within the U.S. (that is domestically) after the debacles of the Nixon White House in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It felt that there needed to be a balance of power, because the Nixon White House was grabbing too much power and Nixon was claiming "executive privilege" in its dealings with the anti-war movement. And I don't think it's just Democrats who think a court order is necessary. I would imagine there are many moderate Republicans and Independents who don't want George Bush acting like he's above the law.

The problem is once you start down the "slippery slope," it's nearly impossible to retract. For instance, you are asking now what about spying on "foreign" terrorists. In five years, it will be "domestic" terrorists, and in another five years, it will be "ordinary" Americans. You then have a police state.

I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, but remember one thing: Hitler was ELECTED by the people of Germany and within a few years, he had created a police state and dragged the country into a world war that no one in 1932 could probably have foreseen.

It is up to the courts and legislatures to put the breaks on executive power before that power goes to the heads of presidents. Remember which branch of government controls the military? The executive branch.

2006-10-14 21:25:49 · answer #2 · answered by Shelley 3 · 0 3

Title 10 of the internal Security act covered that 50 years ago.

You can grab a suspected enemy and question him. That is no different now than when George Washington was fighting the Brits

I suspect that all this extra legislation is designed to limit out activity's/freedom. No one can read and comprehend a Law anymore most are 10,000 pages or more long. (Which means no one person has ever read the whole thing)

Go big Red Go

2006-10-14 21:16:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Actually they don't care one way or the other. They just use that as an excuse to trash the President, Republican Party, and the United States in general. They would sell...no give away their mothers soul to regain their supposed rightful place of power.

2006-10-14 22:04:23 · answer #4 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 2 0

Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

2006-10-14 21:09:34 · answer #5 · answered by dstr 6 · 0 5

Because they want to be loved by the world no matter how many Americans have to die. If you look at the leaders of the Democratic party, Bill and Hillary, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid they were all members of the Communist Party of America and anything they can do to destroy our democratic society to them is acceptable.

2006-10-14 21:16:30 · answer #6 · answered by daydoom 5 · 3 1

Liberals fear that they will get caught giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. To the putt who quoted all the constitution issues, none apply to terrorists or foreign nationals attacking this country.

2006-10-14 21:15:37 · answer #7 · answered by Colorado 5 · 3 1

They're just whining that Bush is doing a better job than BJ Clinton.

2006-10-14 21:15:59 · answer #8 · answered by Mom of One in Wisconsin 6 · 3 0

we need a court order to spy on the White House and these Republican Thugs

2006-10-14 21:08:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

They do sound awfully like the terrorists now, I wonder have they been calling overseas?

2006-10-14 21:10:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers