How many are for Bush's warrant-less spy bill with Gonzales providing the oversight?

Question

Please state reason and party affiliation with answer.

`
Let us not forget that the Senate approved it too.
`

GIVRO (below) Hard core - Independent - since childhood.

ALSO, my disdain for the current admin and love of the US labor force makes a certain group label me a "liberal" which I wear with honer via their definition.

- honor - (above)

dez604 (below) I was stationed at Barksdale AFB to PROTECT the constitution against ALL enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Passin of this bill subverts the very reason I served. I don't believe in tyranny due to fear OR any other reason. I'd rather die free than live in fear. I would have died for the very freedoms that this Admin and Senate are giving away TO fear and FOR control.

- Passing - (above)

Answer 1

If bush is for it,,I'm not betting a nickel on it,,party affiliation,,I'm not a loyal dog to either...chow dude

Answer 2

O yea Bush sure got lucky avoiding terrorist attacks using tools like the warrant less spy bill !God for bid us actually spying on are enemies? What a stupid Idea .And what gall holding suspected Terrorist ?These people have rights! As a mater of fact the Democrat Liberals go out of there way to make sure they are taking care of making it so they can sue Americans just for reporting suspicious behavior from them.The Democrat Liberals are doing every thing they can to help the Terrorist This bill is just one of many things they do to help them .There is a word for this it's called "Treason" But soon a Democrat will take Bushes place and by that time it won't matter any more do to we will all be DEAD<<

Answer 3

First off, there not listening to conversations between you and whoever talk about the time you won the 100 Yard dash in 5th grade. Chi Guy, you once said you were stationed at barksdale, you should the importance of national security especially after the terror attacks in the 90's, Khobar Towers, embassy bombings, 93 WTC., U.S.S. Cole., and 9-11, and with terror and sleeper cells operating in our country as we speak to carry terror attacks. We live in a day in age where our enemy's are cowards and use sneak attacks on us to show the American public that the government can't protect us. I am glad the house passed this, and be sides if your not a criminal and doing anything illegal then I guess you have no need to worry.

Answer 4

I'm not for it--but I see why the Conress is putting up with this. What we have is a situation similar to the Iraq funding bill.

There, Bush threatened to veto any bill he didn't like--in effect holding the troops hostage to coerce the money out of Congress without a timetable.

Heere, its parallel. We do need surveillance--no one has ever disputed that. But--if the Congress puts in the kind of restrictions tha tshould be there, he's going to veto it--leaving the intelligence people with no legal way to do their job--in other words, Bush is willing to leave America vulnerable rather than sign a bill that complies with the Constitution.

The Democrats have managed a compromise--first, this bill is not permanant--and it does not waive cort review of covert spying. It does allow the intelligence community to act without warrents--as long as court review begins within 20 days.

As written--its unconstitutional, for a number ofreasons. But it does deny what Bush really wants--permanant authority to spy on anything/anyone he wants without having to ever submit to judicial review. Which means Bush/Cheney/Gonzales (if he's around-doubtful) won't have the dictatorial power they crave.

So--given the circumstances--and that the GOP in Congress still don't have the balls to stand up to Bush, it will have to do.

Answer 5

I'm against any legislation that allows the executive branch to steal power from the judicial. There was a reason FISA courts were invented, they satisfy all needs we have in regards to national security and privacy, while still being in line with the constitution. The problem is FISA courts only work when the government uses them. We do not need to rewrite the rules because Alberto & Bush are either too incompetent, or too lazy, to do the paperwork.

Answer 6

It's really a bad idea.

Ignore the fact that nobody except Bush trusts the AG.

Current law: 50 USC 1802 -- "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance ***without a court order*** under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that.... there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party"

Current law. One year, no warrant required, as long as the communication is overseas -- between non-US parties.

So, exactly what more does Bush want?

Answer 7

Are you aware that the law already give the President all he needs, but just to answer your question.

I am for it, after all it is the current law.

Party affiliation, Independent, I vote for who I think will do the best job, so far neither party has much to show for the next Presidential race.

Answer 8

This issue has crossed party lines and is enforced to protect your rights to ask such questions while protecting the citizens of our great nation. There is nothing wrong with your query, but tread lightly. Patriotism and treason is wide line to cross.

Answer 9

I would like to alter it so I have the authority to wiretap the President with out a warrant.

Answer 10

I think requiring court oversight is a reasonable precaution, and I don't think Bush's compromise that the court can review the stats 120 days later is adequate protection.

No party, sorry.