2006-12-04 17:36:14 · 8 answers · asked by krystalsteal249 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It doesn't bother me. I mean really, I bet they are bored 98% of the time with people on the phone gossiping and junk.
It's the 2% that are doing bad stuff and using their phones and get busted that are upset about it - or should be.
The rest of us, unless we're aiding terrorists - do you think they really give a damn about what we're saying?
2006-12-04 17:45:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I oppose it. It should not be a policy. The CIA should do it without permission and terrorists involved with plotting an attack should be assasinated by the CIA and the bodies disposed of. Maybe we will see their picture on a milk carton. The problem is trying to prosecute these people. You dont need legally obtained evidence to shoot someone execution style. I guarantee if noone finds out its going on noone will care. Doubt these people will be missed by someone willing to file a missing person's report.
2006-12-05 01:43:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I support it. After America entered world war one Woodrow Wilson wire tapped all phones in the nation. After pearl Harbor was attacked Roosevelt did the same thing, including placing all Japanese Americans in federally monitored camps.
Bush has directed the NSA to identify the top areas in the country believed to be home to sleeper cells, and tap those phones. The tragedy is that before Osama Bin Ladens New York based information ministry, the New York Times, leaked this classified government program; there was a lot of activity going on and the NSA was able to stop terror attacks, and now, because of the program being exposed; that source of intelligence gathering has dried up. Why the Attorney General hasn't filed charges against the New York Times is beyond me.
2006-12-05 01:58:25 · answer #3 · answered by billy d 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Support.
Although warrantless surveillance can be a slippery slope, we are engaged with an enemy unlike any we have ever faced before. If an American citizen is snagged, he/she still has a constitutional right to a fair trial. Keep in mind that this practice has been going on for many decades. The feds could care less who's zooming who's neighbor - they will pay attention to pedophiles though - or what their bathroom habits are; they want supporters of terrorist cells who intend to do us great harm.
2006-12-05 01:49:37 · answer #4 · answered by crusty old fart 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oppose... I know it is done anyway, but without a warrant based upon probable cause, it should be illegal - even for the president.
2006-12-05 01:39:28 · answer #5 · answered by Heatmizer 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the situation and what kind of eavesdropping. If it for the security of our country during wartime, then YES, I am for it.
2006-12-05 02:07:22 · answer #6 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
oppose! we are losing important rights every day now. one of these days, one of these lost rights will affect YOU! but, by that time, we will have no say in what is done to us.
2006-12-05 01:54:17 · answer #7 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its wrong as hell and violates the 4th ammendment
2006-12-05 07:57:34 · answer #8 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋