Other than providing out of agency oversight to prevent abuses, what is the down side?
2007-09-19 07:24:00 · 17 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A lot of bureaucracy. The deed has been done...where is the oversight? can they go back in time and keep an eye on it?...
I know I know...way too over simplified...that as serious as I could take this question.
2007-09-19 07:32:01 · answer #1 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No they won't be able to explain. I don't think it is too much to ask. We are not asking for a warrent before the search, we never have. We realize that for NSA to do their job they must often work fast and don't have time to wait for a warrent. However to get the warrent informing the judge that they are and have been doing wire tapping is not too much to ask. The 30 days gives plenty of time for this. None of their activities need to be made public but there still needs to be oversight or we might as well have a totalitarian regime. Support for wire tap without the 30 day notification seems to indicate a desire to go in that direction.
2007-09-19 14:37:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It isn't about oversight, it isn't about law, it is about limiting executive power. During this entire administration we have seen tremendous steps taken to return power lost because in the 1960's and 1970's because of the corruption it allowed. Bush does not seem to see the reason for these balances and seems to want a return to those days.
2007-09-20 02:16:21 · answer #3 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The NSA was (unofficially) created in 1930 and (officially) in 1954...so why is everyone getting upset now?
2007-09-19 19:04:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't want the oversight. It's very much akin to Bush's, "We don't torture anyone, but I'll veto any anti-torture bill." They want us to believe they're not doing anything wrong, but they don't want to be required to obey the law or the Constitution.
2007-09-19 14:47:15 · answer #5 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't. The government had all the information they needed to prevent 9/11. The whole "we need more tools" bit is a grab for power, plain and simple. Our friend here is also correct. It would be difficult for them to obtain warrants to surveil peaceful Americans with no connection to terrorism, which they are clearly interested in doing.
2007-09-19 14:32:56 · answer #6 · answered by haywood jablome 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
The real question is whether the FISA law is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to circumscribe the president's powers as commander in chief.
A law may or may not "impede" something, but if it's unconstitutional it doesn't really matter if it does.
2007-09-19 14:35:53 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Thank you very much.
It's all quite simple, really.
This country has ample, adequate, perfectly legitimate rules in place BEFORE THE PATRIOT ACT which are perfectly capable of dealing with terrorists.
There is NO legitimate reason for the usurping of the Constitution which has occurred since 9/11.
2007-09-19 14:31:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 2⤋
They can't say anything, other than not answer you or cite charges against another non-governmental citizen.
There is no downside. And lets remember that even Tony Soprano knew his phones could be tapped. I'm sure the terrorists know it too.
2007-09-19 14:33:17 · answer #9 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They don't want to have the oversight apparently.
What they don't understand about :
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.
.....continues to elude the sane ones of us.
2007-09-19 14:28:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 4⤋