Is there something wrong with having the judiciary oversee the program (that is, through the use of warrants)? FISA allowed for wiretapping without warrants in emergencies where the warrant was obtained after the wiretap; what's wrong with that system?
2006-10-30 12:53:57 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
worse still .......... is it a good idea to legalized torture ......... denied detainees the rights to a fair trial ......... denied red cross access to this people ............ what have become of this country? IS THIS AMERICA .............. I THOUGHT WE WERE THE CHAMPIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ALL OVER THE WORLD ......... HAVE WE ALL GONE MAD!
2006-10-30 13:00:11 · answer #1 · answered by AlfRed E nEuMaN 4 preSIDent 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
there is nothing wrong with wire tapping through the Fisa court because it involves all three branches of government...the legislative set up a valid law, the executive askes for a warrant and the Judiciary grants the request. the problem is that Bush's administration has bipassed the law and the courts in their dealings..this violates the law and put the Administration into a position of complete power unless the other branches breaks his knuckles over it. what's to stop the Administration from bugging the Democrats party headquarters in the name of national security...bush is a nasty guy...doesn't know what democracy is and cares little for the rule of law.
2006-10-30 21:03:41 · answer #2 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm surprised anyone uses cell phones by the "ON box" decision anything that goes out over the air waves can be captured and viewed by anyone that makes their own equipment. The government is a rather big entity.
2006-10-30 20:58:40 · answer #3 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The judiciary shouldn't oversee the program. The judiciary should limit it's involvement to determining the legal boundaries of the progrm and trying the people involved.
Judicial oversight of the program could lead to an automatic presumption of guilt and deny the accused a fair trial.
2006-10-30 21:07:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
If you want to avoid wiretaps, stop talking to your terrorist friends in other countries. I don't have a problem with our policies.
It's a trade off: Lose the right to talk to terrorists without being wiretapped. Gain the right to continue breathing. Looks like a good deal to me.
2006-10-30 21:44:02 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hitler had the same idea. Bush & Mr. Darkness have picked up where he left off. It is the fascist playbook. They use "the foreign threat" to scare the population into surrendering their rights and power, and then do whatever they wish. It is known as the big lie.
2006-10-30 21:02:49 · answer #6 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Only if you look forward to living in the coming New World Order fascist police state. Their shoving it right down our throats, one step at a time. Can't you see what's coming?
2006-10-30 21:02:07 · answer #7 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 7⤊ 0⤋
You're pretending to be worried that Bush is listening in on your phone calls, and you're reacting with typical bullshit Liberal over-hype. Do you really think the government is tapping your phone, even after hearing the explanations regarding exactly the sort of people they're listening to? Let me tell you just in case your short-term memory loss is interfering with your ability to retain pertinent information - the phone taps are on known terrorists and their connections, and the government is interested in only the people who are contacting them. And even in those cases, people do not do the listening, computers do, using software that is programmed to search for certain key words.
So ... are you making any phone calls to Osama bin Laden & his friends? If not, then don't worry because nobody is listening in on your boring, insignificant little calls. And yes, I fully support this program and if Democrats & Libs were concerned at all for the security of this country they'd shut up, sit down, and let the Dep't of Homeland Security do its job.
2006-10-30 21:04:20 · answer #8 · answered by My Evil Twin 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
bad idea...causes more fear and paranoia. causes some ppl to believe the gov't has the u.s citizen's best interests in mind, when they don't. they want to control us with the use of fear tactics. the majority of the ppl running the gov't are thieving criminals in one way or another. it's all a bunch of rhetoric and propaganda. and yes, i do vote, even though i don't believe my vote counts.
2006-10-30 21:09:09 · answer #9 · answered by pirate00girl 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolute power should absolutely never be given to anyone including any President. No one person should ever have absolute power. Not even one group should this ever happen. As someone else said once.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2006-10-30 20:59:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
i would say, now this is just a guess, that if you arent talking to bin laden overseas, you probably dont need to sweat it..oversight is a good thing and there are times and places for it....finding out that bin laden is gonna blow down the statue of liberty on the phone would not count as one of those times
2006-10-30 20:59:36 · answer #11 · answered by ronnie b 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋