Why are liberals against wiretapping foreign terrorists? Do they want another 911?

Question

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300738,00.html

I cant believe that democrats are playing politics with our security. However, this battle they will surely lose. Bush is gaining momentum on this, and at the same time making dems look weak weak weak on terror! Yes!

Answer 1

Wow! Really? What country do you live in: The REAL America, or the Neighborhood of Make-Believe concocted in Mister Bush's Neighborhood?!?

Watching Fox News for your daily dose of news is the same as getting your news from National Enquirer!

Answer 2

I would be most protected against another 9-11 if everyone aside from myself was imprisoned or beheaded. Nevertheless, I'm willing to roll the dice and continue to live with all of you.

Security is politics. Perhaps everyone should be wiretapped to ensure that we don't have another terrorist attack? After all, only those who are guilty will be pursued. Problem is everybody is guilty of something. Speeding, underage drinking, jaywalking, having oral sex. A case can be made that you are a threat to society by anyone with a little time and incentive.

And your question really is incomprehensible. If we know they are foreign terrorists - why are we just wiretapping them? Why don't we just arrest them and charge them with the appropriate crime? I assume you mean we should wiretap people who we suspect are foreign terrorists. I don't think you would have to look too long to find someone who thinks that all foreigners should be suspected terrorists - at the very least - all foreigners from certain countries. Why not wiretap all of 'em.

Really - your question begs the question - what is a terrorist? I know what they are after they committ a terrorist act - and in that case I support prosecution to the fullest extent of the law - or if they are as stupid as Al Quaeda - a proper declaration of war - if that is possible against a non-governmental entity -and a full scale military action to eliminate the organization.

If you ask me who is a potential terrorist - I would have to answer - anyone. Again a little time and effort is all it would take. But then again - maybe I'm just paranoid.

Answer 3

I don't think they want another 911 but their intense hatred for Bush just might cause another 911. Basically, if Bush is for something the Democrats are against it. Take for instance Social Security. For the longest time Democrats constantly talked about how broken that program was and how it needed to be fixed before it was too late. Recently Bush proposed changes to Social Security to address these issues but now the Democrats say nothing is wrong with it. The Democrats are invested in defeat in the war on terror. Democrat House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn recently stated that success in Iraq hurts the Democratic party. He stated that a positive report from General Patraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would be "a real big problem for us (Democrats)."

The domestic electronic surveillance ball really got rolling under the Clinton administration, with the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA mandated that the telcos aid wiretapping by installing remote wiretap ports onto their digital switches so that the switch would be available for snooping by law enforcement.

Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, 1802 of FISA specifically permitts warrantless surveillance. If politicians on the left do not like this they should have it changed.

Answer 4

Because Democrats believe in the Constitution. Democrats are not against legitimate wiretaps to protect National Security. There are Constitutional processes to get a warrant. A warrant can be signed as quickly as it takes to install a wiretap. We will actually be more secure, as then any evidence gained cannot be thrown out of court. Of course that is assuming we ever actually prosecute alleged terrorists. We will also protect the integrity of the Constitution which after 220 years is worth saving.

Answer 5

Here's the problem, wiretapping is illegal invasion of privacy.
Now from that we go to the fact the military needs to have covert actions this is true. There is a legal way for the govt to wiretap and that is to report the wiretapping to a justice who was appt to handle this.Fair enough and I can go along with that, however Mr. Bush couldn't. He does not want to report to anyone about his covert actions. This makes me nervous.

Answer 6

Security, as in secure borders?
Security, as in capturing Osama bin Laden, the confessed murderer of almost 3,000 American citizens?
Security, as in wearing paper slippers at the airport?
Security, as in duct tape and plastic sheeting for your windows?

I would say, 6 years after the attacks on Sept 11, 2001, the only one playing "politics with our security" is your Chief Executive.

He has lost whatever credibility he ever had, and you can say "weak on terror" as often as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the man was asleep at the switch from January 20, 2001, to Sept 11, 2001, and allowed al Qaida to attack the US, either through negligence or incompetence, this being a free society, I'll let you choose which.

Answer 7

Although you obviously weren't trying to spark an intelligent debate, just spouting punditory rhetoric, I shall attempt to respond anyway...

It's not about 'liberals' or 'conservatives'. Rational and patriotic Americans recognize that it is a bad idea to give the government blanket authority to invade the privacy of citizens without adequate checks and balnaces to prevent the abuse of such power that has inevitably occurred in every case in which it was given - including the abuses which have already taken place under the current legislation.

Answer 8

The expanded law gives the government the ability to spy on anyone, not just foreign terrorists. That is what people are worried about. Whatever happened to the Republican party being the anti-government party? The government is getting more power every day.

Answer 9

The Patriot Act (or as I call it The Anti Patriot Act) gives the government the ability to tap anyone (including you) for anything you might say or do.

Prior to the (anti) Patriot Act the police had explain to a judge why they wanted to tap a phone, now they can tap who ever they want.

Giving up your liberties and freedoms for your safety is no way to improve your safety, what will happen is that you will have to submit to random house searches, and cops will be able to grab you off the street for a search, or questioning as they please.

We all understand that its the next step? Right. We need to hunt down terrorists so lets do random house searches.

The terrorists have won, they have changed us, and they have made us into something we are not.

Answer 10

Because they are just using 9/11 as a way to gain further control over the American people, which is something they have been trying to do long before 9/11. 9/11 was just a good excuse to use to pass the Patriot Act. Stop watching Fox, and try reading some alternative news and think for yourself.