Do terrorists have the right to privacy?

Question

The libs on Y/A think so.

PNAC asked the following question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkKPGAqVKqtII.zs0AsBwXrty6IX?qid=20070822160630AAajkEs&show=7#profile-info-BDXckx9Eaa

The Senate's vote to give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants provoked responses of taking away OUR rights and freedoms. But look at what this allows for: "authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists".

How is this a problem? First, do you think the government cares even a little bit about your conversation with your friend? Using this logic should we not allow detectives to investigate crime as it may involve them "infringing" on your rights by say, blocking a public street for a while. Understand, the world has evil people in it (I know, we'll get the childish "Bush" responses). Sometimes, especially in war time certain things should be done to help ensure our safety and freedoms.

Freedom does come at a cost... although I hardly believe listening to terrorists phone conversations cost us very much by way of our freedoms.

Also, in many cases you don't have time to get warrants.. and in most cases these guys aren't citizens of our country and they are here illegally and therefore they are crimminals and therefore they are not afforded the rights our citizens enjoy.

If you aren't plotting anything illegal... what are you so afraid of?

Because most of the libs blew right by the context I will repeat it several times...

"authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists".

"authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists".

"authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists".

"authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists".

"authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists".

"authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists".

Where did that say the power to wiretap anyone? Obviously if they are a SUSPECTED FOREIGN TERRORIST.. does that not imply that they have investigated them? And by your logic.. how do we go about investigating them? Would that not be prying into their private lives?

It is amazing how libs rush to the defense of terrorists and grant them rights yet they support programs that take away our freedoms... i.e. smoking bans in private entities, elimination of trans fat and so on.

I'll post a follow up question...

Answer 1

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME,
DO TERRORISTS HAVE THE RIGHT FOR THE FOLLOWING

93 Wtc Bombing
96 Khobar Towers 19 AIRMAN DEAD 300 WOUNDED
98 2 U.S. Embassy Bombings 5,000 wounded
2000 U.S.S. COLE
2001 9-11 3,000 Americans dead,

Now the Gov is not listening to you talk to your GREAT Aunt about the sweater she bought for you when you were 9, they are listening to help prevent the ABOVE FROM HAPPENING and so far we have uncovered and stopped many terror plots that could have killed more Americans. Besides if YOUR NOT A CRIMINAL THAN YOU HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, NOW DO YOU.

EDIT LOVE MUFFIN. are you freakin kidding me, tell me what state you live in and if it's close, you can swing by one of my terrorist operations class and watch some video, it would be a life changer for you, Also stop hating your country.
2001 9-11 3,000 AMERICANS DIED

Answer 2

The slow erosion of our freedoms is the first step in the government taking over our country.

They will tell you 'you need to give up certain freedoms for security'. That's already been done and people gave them up willingly.

The next will be that we can't find out who the terrorists are so we are going to make it illegal for any citizen to have a gun. Just to keep you safer.

Good luck with that. They're not taking away my freedoms nor my weapons.

Little by little they will take your freedoms and one day you will find that you lost them all in the name of security. No thanks...by then you won't be able to stop them.

The Right to Bear Arms is not to protect yourself from criminals....it's the right to protect yourself from the government becoming corrupt to the point where you cannot stop them.

Give nothing up in the name of security...or you WILL LOSE IT ALL.

Answer 3

The Bush Administration has not presented enough information on his Eavesdropping program for us to know whether, in practice, only "suspected foreign terrorists" are getting eavesdropped on.

Answer 4

The more laws we have 'protecting' our freedom, the less freedom we have.

Who is a terrorist? Eventually, if you fail to pay child support, and traveled to Mexico you will be labeled a terrorist.

It won't be long before all of our driver's licenses have RFID tags in them and we're tracked 100% everywhere we go.

You laugh, but the wiretap law is just another step toward total control. Right along side gun control, financial account reporting and reporting of book purchases. We get comfortable, and we lose a little more, 'Ah, it's only . . .'

Within our lifetime we will see 100% real-time tracking of people. It will start with pedophiles, then felons, then the elderly, then babies born in 'high risk' areas . . . then we'll get used to it and we'll say 'ah, it's only RFID tracking.'

Too many people are now saying 'ahh it's only eavesdropping on terrorists'

No, I do not believe there are silent black helicopters over my house. Although there could be, I wouldn't know - they're silent

Answer 5

You are asking the wrong question. It's like saying so suspected murders have rights? Of course they do. Police need search warrants, suspects get trials and other elements of due process.

How do you know who the terrorists are? Are you really going to trust President Bush (or maybe President Clinton) to decide that all by him/herself with no judicial over-site?

The FISA law lets the president wiretap without a war rent immediately and then he has 3 days to report to the FISA court. I would favor increasing the time to report, but not removing over-site. History has proved time and time again that an executive branch without congressional or judicial over-site always breaks the rules.

Answer 6

If I'm not going to do anything illegal what am I afraid of?

What total BULLSHIT!

Obviously you heard half of that off of the television or more.

Freedom has a cost its called wiping your own *** and taking care of yourself. Not turning off to the world and letting legitimate or illegitimate government take care of you and treat you like a child in your own home.

Suspected does NOT mean probable cause leading to a warrant which is IN the Constitution which IS our government NOT the morons elected and not executive decrees that say basically your freedom needs to be sacrificed so we can tap your phones because of SUSPICION.

Suspicion requires NO evidence WHAT SO EVER.

so you RE read that and honestly say its anti terrorism when the bill of rights had everything right the first time.

I understand the world has evil people in it and they use ignorance to make you inactive. Read the terms and conditions CLEARLY and you will see how it plainly does NOT exclude but includes the entire population at the executives will and NOT requiring any type of evidence building or case material to monitor terrorism.

Its been done the right way for over 200 years and to think someone isn't doing their job now is right the real question is WHY this bogus legislation and sudden ineffective bureaus of investigation and intelligence.


3,000 americans died on 9/11 and so what? we ruin countries and ruin our own? When we dont have clear cut proof or somple flat out evedence to WHO did out outside of thise congressional commitee farce that happened +6 years ago?

People AND Solders need to sober up and look at what thier goverment is supposed to be and what it is now. You arent fighting for anything but a shitty paycheck and empty and hollow honor.

Answer 7

I guess you trust the government to decide who it is appropriate to listen to. It is funny that conservatives think that the government can never do anything right, except when it comes to police powers, and then the government can do no wrong. Personally, I think the government does a better job handing out social security checks than it does deciding whose phone calls they should listen to. And that is why we have things called warrants. Check out the Constitution sometime. We fought the Revolutionary War to protect these rights. They have served us well for a couple of hundred years, when we have faced much greater threats than we are facing now. Let's not be so quick to give them away.

Answer 8

If you can prove in a court of law that a person is a terrorist, then spy on them all you want. But before then, What is the harm in getting enough evidence against someone before wiretapping them? Being Muslim is not enough to warrant a tap.

Yea, because I am not plotting terrorist attacks on the US, I should allow the government to listen to my phone conversations? ********. That is the exact OPPOSITE idea that the founding fathers had for this country.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I'd like to see you argue that.

Answer 9

The best way to lose your freedoms, is to adopt the idea that if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

While these measures may appear above board, the question is who in reality will police them to make sure they are not abused, and the answer is the same people who are doing the wire tapping.

Reminds me of the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Answer 10

While it's accepted logic that criminals forfeit some of thier rights, it only really aplies after conviction. Anyone can be designated as 'suspected' of just about anything. Today, it's the Reps spying on 'suspected terrorists,' in 2009, it could be the Dems spying on 'suspected hate criminals' ...