Senate votes to expand eavesdropping power - Do you support this?

Question

Democrats give Bush everything he asked for;

Bill matches what Bush requested!

WASHINGTON - The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20108672/


There have been ZERO major terror attacks on USA since 9/11 so these wire taps, along with fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here must be working!




(My 360 Blog and Poll: What GOP candidate do you support?)

Answer 1

yes yes yes. I do support expanding the President's expanded eavesdropping powers. I would also support expanding surveillance powers too.

God bless President Bush!

ps: to all the criminals who want a warrant first so you don't get caught doing your evil deeds. . . . tough. We have a right to watch you, spy on you, listen to you, and pretty much do whatever it takes to bust your dumb*** so either get over it or drag your behind to another country.

Answer 2

As things are right now, only the FBI can legally work within the United States and that includes foreigners that come within the United States. If a known terrorist were to get within the US, the national agencies can do nothing - they have to stop monitoring them and hope the FBI picks up the ball from a law enforcement end. In effect, terrorists can operate easier within the US than anywhere else in the world. There's a reason we were so blind-sided by a domestic attack on 9/11.

Even most politicians can understand that things are too easy on foreign nationals that pose a threat. And to clarify, the expanded authority is specifically for foreign terrorists operating within the US. This bill doesn't allow the federal agencies to operate freely on US citizens without the normal court warrants or without oversight.

Answer 3

Don't forget, it's not only Democrats in Congress. We only hold the majority by 1 in the Senate and a couple of dozen in the House.



And if you read properly, it said that the DEMOCRATIC version failed. That means this came from a REPUBLICAN.

Answer 4

Yes I support this. And I need help from a liberal. I have been trying to convince my phone service supplier that when I get a call from, or make a call to a foreign country, that a "domestic" rate should apply. This is so because the New York Times always refers to these types of wiretapped calls as "domestic wiretapping" even though the connection is to another country. Any suggestions from liberals on how to get my calls overseas classified as "domestic" are welcome.

Answer 5

As long as it is temporary and the necessity can not be denied I am for it. A private conversation with someone over seas or of suspicious nature is the least of the rights that have been compromised over the years with absolutely no national security reason behind their compromise.

Answer 6

Making it legal will only cause the agents to slip up on their jobs. They should work under the constant threat of facing jail time if discovered. That keeps them from investigating people who do not warrant suspicion, and it keeps them from making mistakes.

Answer 7

It scares me. I don't support it.
How can they do something like this but then still be so lax with security measures? (at airports, for example...I just went to London and our security is pathetic compared to theirs.)
Bush has nothing left to lose, so he can do whatever the hell he wants. Thank God his term is almost over. I'm counting down the days.

Answer 8

Most Americans should be against it. It's very easy to get a permission from the court to eavesdrop on anyone. Very easy. The administration should ask permission before eavesdropping.

Answer 9

i seem at Sandy Hook.........and that i seem on the ruling. Now you tell me, it is a few form of victory. Yeah, victory for idiots thinking Obama desires to take ALLLLL their weapons away. no longer a victory for any parent of that college taking photos........or any of the umpteen shootings these days. We merely wanted a sprint greater extreme historic past verify while some "end of the worlder" is stocking up on computerized weapons. did no longer seem as though lots to invite. yet, you go forward and "celebrate" the victory, for psychological sufferers, to purchase as many deadly weapons as they want. Woo Hoo! You go, bro.

Answer 10

Lets see do I support the unwarranted wiretapping that violates the fourth amendment and the only person's word that everything is on the up and up is Alberto Gonzalez.

It I did than I also support tooth decay and I was rooting for the Emperor thoughout the Star Wars movies.