Bush wants eavesdropping law perminent and expanded?

Question

President Bush said Wednesday that a law hastily passed in August to temporarily give the government more power to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign terror suspects must be made permanent and expanded.

This law is a direct violation of our rights, and does nothing to protect the country. He says that if we dont do it, then we will be much more vulnerable to attack, he is once again using scare tactics to get people to act. Why arent we stopping this guy? And how do people still support his illegal actions and think hes "great"

anyone on the "do not fly" list can attest to how good our government is at monitoring who is and isnt a suspected terrorist. I have no fear that i will directly be affected by this, but other innocent people will be, who are not terrorists, their rights will be violated, and that is not ok. If you read it, it said any foreign initiated call, even to the USA can be tapped if suspected as a terrorist, again, the Administration hasnt done a good job proving itself to be very good at figuring out who the terrorists are and arent, so innocent people being called from outside the country will be tapped, their rights violated.

Answer 1

It's a slippery slope...start with "listening to track terrorists" & it's just a few miles down the road to wiretaps for people who don't support the Iraq War, or people who favor a flat tax, or people who want universal health care (or other wild, satanic, & communist ideas).
The end does NOT always justify the means.

Answer 2

Really thinking about both sides here. Mabey eavesdropping on people would work because we could never know what some people are planning or not. We dont want the same thing to happen on September 11th again. I'm not saying it will but nobody knows. On the other side, eavesdropping is an invasion of privacy and i can really understand why you have the belief you do.

Answer 3

I'm constantly stunned by the number of Americans who are totally oblivious to the Bill of Rights and the importance of its protections. Terms like "unreasonable searches and seizures" and "speedy and public trial" aren't just legal jargon. They're straight from the Bill of Rights. If we allow our most important Constitutional rights and freedoms to be taken from us so easily, the terrorists will have won and the USA will no longer be the "land of the free". [edit] Jim, I hate to single anyone out, but your statement, "I could give a hoot less if big brother listens to my phone calls.", absolutely demands a rebuttal. Have you ever read "1984"? Do you understand why George Orwell wrote it? He said that it was so that we would recognize Big Brother when we see him. It's one of the most dystopian novels ever written, a nightmare of the worst-case scenario of a government gone mad with power, yet you are so oblivious to the danger you're ready to welcome Big Brother with open arms. For God's sake, read "1984" before it's too late. Domestic spying is at the heart of Orwell's vision of evil totalitarianism. You can't understand how insidious that spying can be unless you've read the book. Sure, it's a work of fiction, but he wrote it out of a sense of social consciousness. He saw the warning signs and felt compelled to warn everyone. If we don't heed the warning, we'll lose the war on terror...to our own government. That could be just as bad as losing to the terrorists. sha sha Sharona, you just don't get it. The Bill of Rights is for ALL of us. If those rights are taken away, NOBODY is guaranteed them any more. You can't pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't and pretend that it only affects the terrorists. Meddling with the Constitution affects everyone. Artimorty, I like your answer so much I'd give it two thumbs up if I could. I've always thought it was interesting that Benjamin Franklin was clearly the most intelligent of our founding fathers, but he never was President of the United States. That trend continues to this day. The most intelligent people know better than to want the job, so we wind up with people like you-know-who.

Answer 4

You think it is directed at you? You should read a bit more about the law before you post a question. Technology has changed everything in regard to calls coming into our country. Look it up.

I knew the Libs would go nuts. Look at the way they simplify it as if GW is honing in on your personal calls. That's not how it works.

Answer 5

He acknowledged during the address that he allowed the NSA "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

The NSA eavesdrops on billions of communications worldwide. Although the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The court is set up specifically to issue warrants allowing wiretapping on domestic soil.

"The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is targeted at Al Qaeda communications coming into or going out of the United States. It is a limited, hot pursuit effort by our intelligence community to detect and prevent attacks. Senate Democrats continue to engage in misleading and outlandish charges about this vital tool that helps us do exactly what the 9/11 Commission said we needed to do - connect the dots. It defies common sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its authority while their own party leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times - only after there was a leak and subsequent media coverage did they start criticizing the program. Such irresponsible accusations will not keep us from acting to stay a step ahead of a deadly enemy that is determined to strike America again."

- Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary

The President Has The Inherent Authority Under The Constitution, As Commander-In-Chief, To Authorize The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. AG GONZALES: "I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do."

The Congress Confirmed And Supplemented This Authority When It Passed The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In The Wake Of The 9/11 Attacks. AG GONZALES: "Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ... requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday ... unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence."

The Supreme Court Ruled That The AUMF's Authorization To "Use All Necessary And Appropriate Force" Encompasses The "Fundamental Incident[s] Of Waging War." AG GONZALES: "[O]ne might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past - in 2004, the Hamdi decision. ... [In Hamdi, the Supreme Court said that] it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder - the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, 'detention,' she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, 'authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force.'"

Interception Of Communications Has Been Authorized Since President Roosevelt In 1940. "[Interception of communications for foreign intelligence purposes] have been authorized by Presidents at least since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1940." ("Legal Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The National Security Agency Described By The President," U.S. Department Of Justice, 1/19/06)


Every Federal Appellate Court To Rule On The Issue Has Concluded That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Searches. "The courts uniformly have approved this longstanding Executive Branch practice. Indeed, every federal appellate court to rule on the question has concluded that, even in peacetime, the President has inherent constitutional authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct searches for foreign intelligence purposes without securing a judicial warrant." ("Legal Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The National Security Agency Described By The President," U.S. Department Of Justice, 1/19/06)

"Why arent we stopping this guy?" Because he's not breaking any laws nor infringing upon your rights!

Answer 6

The reason they are catching these would be terrorists is because they can track and trace them. I see nothing wrong about that and would gladly let gov't have that tool.

I'd rather not be killed because of something so stupid as not allowing law enforcement to be able to find these guys.

The end justifies the means.

Answer 7

Exactly how is it a violation of your 'rights' for the government to monitor your communications with terrorist organizations?

Answer 8

You bonehead, there is nothing illegal about listening to conversation that don't originate in this country. Every administration has used it since it became possible. No rights violated because the law doesn't apply.

Answer 9

It proves to me that all we have found out is true. And the people he is MOST terrified of are the American people. It's his guilty conscience.

Answer 10

In case you haven't noticed, wiretaps, etc., have been used for at least the past 50 years.