Because there are bigger issues like illegal immigration.
2007-11-19 04:57:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Because it had been established, before Bush even ran for the 2000 GOP nomination, that the president had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance (wiretaps, searches, etc) for national security purposes.
Jamie Gorelick, a Deputy AG in the Clinton Admininstration, stated this in testimony to Congress. It's been well established.
Just because they can fool a lot of people with partisan rhetoric when it suits them, doesn't mean they're fools.
2007-11-19 12:59:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Actually a better question is: Why aren't there more questions of more topics that are of importance? I mean, it's always the same topics and even those topics aren't discussed in-depth. We should talk about wiretapping, we should talk about our monetary system, we should talk about the constitution, we should talk about our economy, etc.
It's a shame when I see many of the politicians answer a question and don't really answer it at all without putting a yes and no in the same answer.
2007-11-19 12:51:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Austrian Theorist 4
·
6⤊
0⤋
The reality is that wiretapping on international calls is legal.
Wiretapping within the US you need a court order.
2007-11-19 12:54:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Good question. The debates are hardly true debates. More like an opportunity to practice campaign speeches...
2007-11-19 12:44:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by greenman_4thefuture 2
·
5⤊
1⤋
Well, Bush is not running for one thing.
2007-11-19 12:46:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by booman17 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
The less we the people know the more likely we will vote for the wrong candidates -
2007-11-19 12:40:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by rooster 5
·
2⤊
4⤋
Why should they be discussing this?They should be discussing things that hinder our security, not things that help it.
2007-11-19 12:53:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by jim h 6
·
3⤊
1⤋