English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The US Government knows that there are domestic and foreign based terrorist cells operating inside the USA, and they also should realize that the perfect means of communications between these terrorist cells could be the Internet, enabling these terrorists to be able to safely communicate with each other to formulate any plans they might be working on. Would you personally feel that it was against your Constitutional Rights if the US Government monitored ALL Internet traffic in the name of Homeland Security?

Effective communications in monitoring the Internet is a way in which to block terrorist cells from communicating with each other, since fax, telephone and snail mail can be also monitored by the Government, so by allowing the government to do this, we as American's will be able to successfully fight and defeat any terrorist group that is bent on harming innocent people with their tactics.

What is your take on this subject, and please, no children need to reply, thank you!

2007-10-26 02:22:40 · 5 answers · asked by libertybell 2 in Politics & Government Government

Also, if you think this question is interesting, would you give it a star, thanks!

2007-10-26 02:29:08 · update #1

The US Government is not stupid, contrary to what most people tend to think, and once they have located a hidden terrorist cell operating inside the US, they would monitor it and then track the members activities, and block any of their attempts to attack US cities or people. The US Govt is doing a pretty good job of preventing any additional terrorist attacks against the USA, so why not work with our own govt in helping to protect our fellow American's and all of our loyal allies from future attacks, afterall, the life you save may be your own! I support my govt., do you?

2007-10-26 02:34:53 · update #2

5 answers

It is all well and good to monitor the internet to prevent things that would hurt our national security but the problem is that someone has to make the decision as to what is a threat to national security and what may be a threat to whatever political party is in power and who do we trust to have that power and how do we ensure that they don't abuse it.
J.Edgar Hoover at one point placed an illegal wiretap in a house of a mafia gang - while denying at the same time that there was a mafia family in this country - heard of a murder to be committed by an FBI informant, allowed the murder to occur, and then allowed 3 innocent persons to be charged for the crime and sent to prison for life - several FBI agents have since been sent to prison for their part in this event - so how do we ensure that the monitoring is not also used against Americans as well as terrorist groups?
It is fine to establish means to monitor communications between terrorist groups but at the same time we need to put in place a means of preventing abuse of that power or we are no better off than if we don't bother to monitor anyone.

2007-10-26 03:11:25 · answer #1 · answered by Al B 7 · 1 0

I think we as Americans, must be "very" careful what, when and under what conditions we allow monitoring of all forms of communications. Monitoring without just cause and a warrant sounds like something dictator governments would do to control their own people

2007-10-26 02:35:46 · answer #2 · answered by Jan Luv 7 · 1 0

How does the govt "know" that there are terror cells in the country, without being able to find them?

They are guessing that maybe there are such cells.

The Internet is already being monitored. Online privacy is as much a fairy tale as online security.

2007-10-26 02:29:02 · answer #3 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 1 0

Are you kidding?

With the technology available to the FBI and the FCC, the Internet is surely monitored, and censored on a minute by minute basis.

.

2007-10-26 02:29:34 · answer #4 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 1 0

I accept as true with you! After 2000 years of scuffling with interior the middle east, it quite is the two very naive or very conceited for one guy or woman to think of that they only could bypass in and talk and alter the comprehensive process history.

2016-12-18 17:45:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers