If warrantless wiretapping could have prevented 9/11, would you have supported it?

Question

This is of course a hypothetical, but a relevant one. Please offer your opinions

Answer 1

Prior to 9/11 everyone would have bristled at the idea of warrantless wiretaps. Post-9/11 the idea has some merit, and gains value as the depth of some of these terrorist cells becomes known.

If 9/11 was stopped and the government admitted it did so becuase they were doing widespread phone tapping of suspected people most innocent citizens would praise the government. The constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact.

Answer 2

Oh this is going to be fun. I wonder how many Americans know the facts with regards to warrantless wiretapping? I suppose it would surprise quite a few of you that none other then Former President Bill Clinton introduced anti-Terrorism legislation between 1996-1998 that also contained broadened wiretapping capabilities. And I reckon the Neo-Conservatives on here don't realise that they're partially responsible for 9/11 occuring as well. Why? Because the Republicans, who had control of both houses, thought the bill war un-needed... and in the words of one prominent Republican "Terrorism is a Phony Issue" (see Trent Lott, R-Mississippi). You can read about it here if you'd like.. http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Truth is that warrantless wiretapping is wrong. No matter how you toy with the idea of it being useful (which it can be) it also has the ability to be used for more wrongs then rights (an argument for the legality of Richard Nixon's Watergate would have been possible under the proposed warrantless wiretapping legislation).
It's un-democratic and gives far too much power to the government. We all want to be safe,, but we also don't want to give up the very thing that makes others dislike us.. which is... freedom.

Answer 3

So if i say no I'm going to look like a scumbag who hates this country. Why not try asking the question a different way instead of trying to set up people to look like jerks? There was a lot of knowledge that something was going to happen before it did. The fact that Rice handed the president a memo on August 6th that said an attack was planned and then the memo was ignored. John Ashcroft, the director of the FBI started using a private plane during the summer of 2001 because of a known threat. I think the problem is that the intelligence agencies didn't communicate properly, not that they didn't have warrantless wiretapping.

Answer 4

Not a valid hypothetical Alex. Any terror cell at some point in time would have to be target by U.S. intel in some way. There aren't just people listening in of billions of conversations everyday "finding" stuff. They are targeted, i.e. there is a reason to zero in on them.
In which case, they would simply get a warrant and show the reason. The FISA courts approve 99.2% of all requests. And you can start tapping for 72 hours before you make the request for a warrant.

There is no reason to tap without a warrant unless you are doing something surreptitious that you want to keep off the record. That's why the court is there, not so much to judge the merits of requests as it is to keep a record of spying activities within our borders. People like you just don't understand this. You believe that warrants in some way hamper intelligence gathering. They don't. They hamper KGB style tactics though. And spying on political enemies......etc...

But to answer directly, No. Taking steps towards becoming a police state would mean the terrorists really win in the end. And I live in New York. Target #1, but I won't let the constitution get trashed over fear.

Answer 5

Good question and a tough one to answer, because the hindsight is 20/20.

If this actually did happen, and the crisis was averted, the world would look a lot different (read - Afghanistan and Iraq). Then, the arrested would be terrorists would be probably be supported by the ACLU claiming their 4th amendment rights were violated.

I don't think I'd have supported doing this, but, if I was 100% certain it would prevent it and was the ONLY way of preventing it, I'd live with it.

Answer 6

No I wouldnt have supported it.
I would rather die before allowing the government to tap my phones without a warrant. Sorry but thats just how it is. We are promised certain rights in the Constitution. The government has no right to take those from us to protect a few people.
It doesnt work that way. It is written into the Constitution that when our government is no longer working for us, we should rebuild it. At this point too many people have forgotten that the power of America is not in our government but in the people that the country truly belongs to.
Our founding fathers gave up everything they ever knew to start this country. What kind of a person would I be if I were to allow the government to piss all over that?

Answer 7

A legal wiretap nearly brought down the 9/11 plot, but the brass at the FBI dragged their feet, and we only got the one guy. If the system is used properly it protects the innocent, and gets the bad guys.

Answer 8

No.

The special court for national security has been able to issue a warrant retroactively (up to a week) after they start the wire tap.

This has been in place since the Nixon era.

The only catch is that you actually have to have probable cause to get the warrant.

So what this really boils down to is that the government is doing blanket wire taps on anyone without cause in blatant violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution.

This alone is grounds for impeachment.

Answer 9

OK....."hypothetically," no.

Life is a constant series of risk assessments. No one enjoys complete and total security. Not even the president. They get shot, too, on occasion.

Our Bill of Rights was carefully constructed, discussed and debated by honorable, intelligent men. It is not something we need to tinker with, in the hope of providing a little more "false" security.

How about this?

If inspecting ALL incoming shipping containers would prevent a future attack - hypothetically - would it be worth the incredible cost?

Besides, you should know that "wiretapping" can be initiated prior to obtaining the warrant, already. The warrant is not an impediment to the investigation.

PhD indeed..........

Answer 10

Of course.

Freedom is not absolutely free; it comes with a price, and that price varies depending on the state of the nation.

Before 9/11, when our nation was at a very high risk of terrorist attacks (Bin Laden said so himself) it should have been necessary to lose some freedom in the short term (in the form of loss of privacy in this case) to enable more freedom from the terrorists in the long-term.

Many people in our nation today are pure hypocrites: they want the government to protect them from the terrorists, yet stay out of their personal business, without realizing that the government has to limit their privacy at least a little bit to give them security.

Yes, this nation was founded on having a limited federal government, states' rights, and allowing most personal freedoms, but every President from George Washington to George W. Bush has realized that during times of crisis in the country, especially during war, U.S. citizens must give up some comforts and rights in the short term in order to keep them in the long term.

A Democracy is not a Utopia.