Democrats think they have a political winner protecting terrorists, they're wrong as usual.

National Security Agency

Survey of 1,000 Adults

December 26-27, 2005

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?
Yes 64%
No 23%

RasmussenReports.com

Is President Bush the first President to authorize a program for intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?
Yes 26%
No 48%

RasmussenReports.com



December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdgeTM Premium Service for Election 2006 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election. We will poll every Senate and Governor's race at least once a month.

Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

I'm one of them.

Quoted: I'm one of them.

Yeah, and to your mind, WHAT is a "Terrorist"? And, what is the .gov's definition of a "terrorist"?

If the .gov is going to surveil U.S. citizens, warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens is just asking for trouble and gives up yet a bunch of other rights. I'll take liberty over safety and security anyday of the week.

100% of poll results should be viewed with skepticism.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm one of them. Yeah, and to your mind, WHAT is a "Terrorist"? And, what is the .gov's definition of a "terrorist"? If the .gov is going to surveil U.S. citizens, warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens is just asking for trouble and gives up yet a bunch of other rights. I'll take liberty over safety and security anyday of the week.

What 'right' is being infringed by intercepting these phone calls? Not being guaranteed privacy while using a public communications system isn't exactly on par with illegal search and seizure, or being denied due process.

Well if they know that they are terrorists then why don't they just whack 'em?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm one of them. Yeah, and to your mind, WHAT is a "Terrorist"? And, what is the .gov's definition of a "terrorist"? If the .gov is going to surveil U.S. citizens, warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens is just asking for trouble and gives up yet a bunch of other rights. I'll take liberty over safety and security anyday of the week. What 'right' is being infringed by intercepting these phone calls? the fact that wire-taps require a warrant by a court under FICA shows that their is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone. Not being guaranteed privacy while using a public communications system it isn't public, it is private. The US government does not own the phone lines, US companies do. isn't exactly on par with illegal search and seizure, or being denied due process. keep on saying that, until this whole war on Islamic terrorism winds down and the democrats continue their attack on "domestic terrorism", you know, us gun owners. I guess there is nothing wrong with police officers using infra-red detectors to look inside your house for contraband, huh?

I seriously fail to see the significance of this spying "scandal." I would much rather my tax money be spent on this than pork belly highway construction funds or FEMA cards

It depends on the .gov definition of "terrorist" If they are going by the FBI's definition i'd be concerned

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm one of them. Yeah, and to your mind, WHAT is a "Terrorist"? And, what is the .gov's definition of a "terrorist"? If the .gov is going to surveil U.S. citizens, warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens is just asking for trouble and gives up yet a bunch of other rights. I'll take liberty over safety and security anyday of the week. What 'right' is being infringed by intercepting these phone calls? the fact that wire-taps require a warrant by a court under FICA shows that their is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone. Not being guaranteed privacy while using a public communications system it isn't public, it is private. The US government does not own the phone lines, US companies do. isn't exactly on par with illegal search and seizure, or being denied due process. keep on saying that, until this whole war on Islamic terrorism winds down and the democrats continue their attack on "domestic terrorism", you know, us gun owners. I guess there is nothing wrong with police officers using infra-red detectors to look inside your house for contraband, huh?

It's hard to respond to the way you quoted, so I'll simply say this: Of course I choose liberty, and being left the fuck alone. That being said, in the modern world, ANY SEMBLANCE OF PRIVACY OR TRUE FREEDOM IS AN ILLUSION.

Quoted: I'm one of them.

+1  Just be sure you go after REAL terrorists, not the "easy" ones, like gun owners.  

Quoted: I think they need to step it up a bit - start doing it with more frequency.   What kind of person wants to advocate privacy protections for suspected Al Queda terrorists? BTW, yes - Al Queda suspects.  That's who they're defining as terrorists these days & that's who they're listening in on.

Then the feds need to follow the LAW and get warrants. Why should the feds be above the law?

Hey, I got it, maybe the feds should wiretap YOU too? Just in case, ya know, it's the only way to be sure, and besides, if you've got nothing to hide you shouldn't be concerned, right?

The only drawback of this is when the Dims get full control of the govt and declare us terrorists and use this type of stuff against us. My personal foil hat crapo I actually believe is possible,

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think they need to step it up a bit - start doing it with more frequency.   What kind of person wants to advocate privacy protections for suspected Al Queda terrorists? BTW, yes - Al Queda suspects.  That's who they're defining as terrorists these days & that's who they're listening in on.   Then the feds need to follow the LAW and get warrants. Why should the feds be above the law? Hey, I got it, maybe the feds should wiretap YOU too? Just in case, ya know, it's the only way to be sure, and besides, if you've got nothing to hide you shouldn't be concerned, right? They are following the law.  Educate yourself. ETA: And pay attention.  These aren't cases of domestic to domestic calls.

how can u be so sure?
its not like theyd tell us the truth
not to tinfoil out here,
but i wouldnt trust the washington folks as far as i could COC violate them

Quoted: The only drawback of this is when the Dims get full control of the govt and declare us terrorists and use this type of stuff against us. My personal foil hat crapo I actually believe is possible,

Clinton already did that...

Newsflash - We are at WAR!

In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities.

And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years.

Don't worry. Big Brother is watching out for you.

GL

Terrorists?



Hmm.....lotsa terrorists on this web board it seems.

Quoted: Newsflash - We are at WAR! In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities. And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years.

So its still right to do that just because FDR did it?

I dont have a problem with nukes being dropped or using flamethrowers, but censorship was bullshit, along with the government interfering with private businesses.

If  anybody has been calling Afganistan or any other known terrorist hot spots( with the excepton of military) then maybe then should worry about this. Pretty hard to moniter everyone  here in the States.

ETA I dont like the US constitution references on that flyer.

I know that there is a lot of concern from gun owners about this and probably for good reason.  I think everyone thought RICO was a good law when it was enacted but who would have thought a president, like Bill Clinton, would use it to prosecute the gun industry.  Same thing with the federal government's role in interstate commerce.  The Clinton administration used that one to justify their actions against the gun industry as well.

I may have some concerns about the govt. being able to tap into conversations but I also don't think there is much that can be done about it.  As far as a judge having to "approve" it, as far as gun owners are concerned, who here thinks that a Washington DC judge is going to give a gun owner a fair shake anyway?

We are at war and doing things to defeat the enemy is necessary.  

Quoted: Yeah, and to your mind, WHAT is a "Terrorist"? And, what is the .gov's definition of a "terrorist"? If the .gov is going to surveil U.S. citizens, warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens is just asking for trouble and gives up yet a bunch of other rights. I'll take liberty over safety and security anyday of the week.

The last time I checked, the definition didn't include me personally. So I say spy away boys! It's about time the CIA/NSA acted like real spy agencies and are actually showing up to work.

Quoted: Quoted: Newsflash - We are at WAR! In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities. And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years. So its still right to do that just because FDR did it? I don't have a problem with nukes being dropped or using flamethrowers, but censorship was bullshit, along with the government interfering with private businesses.

Dude, what does "We are at WAR" mean?
you can't win a war unless you use ALL the means necessary to win that war.

FDR was right and so is GWB. This is 2005/6 and in a digital age spying needs to go digital as well.

Since I work for a Airline, I WANT this to happen, I don't want anymore planes falling out of the sky because we "don't want to offend".

Quoted: So its still right to do that just because FDR did it? I dont have a problem with nukes being dropped or using flamethrowers, but censorship was bullshit, along with the government interfering with private businesses.

Waaaah! Waaaah! Grow up and wake up to reality. The shooting has already started and we're in it to win.

Quoted: They are following the law.  Educate yourself.

The specific wiretaps in the news were done without approval of the FISA court. I'm not sure how this could be considered "following the law." I have no problem with monitoring international or domestic calls when the proper warrants are  issued.

eta: FISA, not FICA.

Quoted: you can't win a war unless you use ALL the means necessary to win that war. FDR was right and so is GWB. This is 2005/6 and in a digital age spying needs to go digital as well. Since I work for a Airline, I WANT this to happen, I don't want anymore planes falling out of the sky because we "don't want to offend".

So the Constitution is just a piece of paper, then? It can be tossed to the side the minute anyone utters the word "terrorist?" Until the government declares martial law, the Constitution is still in effect and the government must abide by it.

The President does not hold unilateral power in his position as CiC; this has been covered by the SCOTUS in the Youngstown, et al v. Sawyer.

Far as I'm concerned, if you are chatting up al Queda, you are guity of treason and forfeit your rights.

NOT that this bogus "right to privacy" is legit anyway.

You have a right against UNREASONABLE search and seizure.

And its VERY reasonable to monitor people chatting with al Queda, ESPECIALLY if they are doing so internationally.

Quoted: The only drawback of this is when the Dims get full control of the govt and declare us terrorists and use this type of stuff against us. My personal foil hat crapo I actually believe is possible,

They won't bother with or need any  precedent set here.

Quoted: So the Constitution is just a piece of paper, then? It can be tossed to the side the minute anyone utters the word "terrorist?" Until the government declares martial law, the Constitution is still in effect and the government must abide by it.

Actually, you're completely wrong! You must be thinking about the Bill of Rights, which limit 'gubment power. There isn't anything in there that says the 'gubment can't monitor the activity of foreign terrorists (and their supporters) on US soil.

The President does not hold unilateral power in his position as CiC; this has been covered by the SCOTUS in the Youngstown, et al v. Sawyer.

No, he does not  have unilateral power. But he does have command over our warmaking apparatus as CiC. So he should be telling the CIA/NSA to spy on terrorists outside and inside the USA, and those that suspected of supporting them, because we are waging war against terrorists.

Quoted: Newsflash - We are at WAR! In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities. And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years.

Bravo! Well said. I think more people need to be reminded of that fact! I also believe that the whacko left (which lately seems to be most of the Democratic Party) sincerely think that this is NOT a war and believe that if left alone, these animals would not bother us ever again. And by left alone, they mean pulling ALL of our troops and advisors out of Muslim countries and out of all countries that we are in. The left wing actually believes we are occupying these nations.


WBK

Quoted: Far as I'm concerned, if you are chatting up al Queda, you are guity of treason and forfeit your rights.

Damn that pesky "due process" crap, right?

Quoted: NOT that this bogus "right to privacy" is legit anyway. You have a right against UNREASONABLE search and seizure.

The SCOTUS ruled in Katz that there is an expectation of privacy when conductinga phone conversation, therefore, a warrant would be needed in order to not run afoul of the 4th Am.

Quoted: Far as I'm concerned, if you are chatting up al Queda, you are guity of treason and forfeit your rights. NOT that this bogus "right to privacy" is legit anyway. You have a right against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And its VERY reasonable to monitor people chatting with al Queda, ESPECIALLY if they are doing so internationally.

Yep.

Quoted: Quoted: Far as I'm concerned, if you are chatting up al Queda, you are guity of treason and forfeit your rights. Damn that pesky "due process" crap, right?

Nah, we can give them a fair trial. And THEN hang them.  

Point is, they are being monitored for communicating with the enemy.

Quoted: NOT that this bogus "right to privacy" is legit anyway. You have a right against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. The SCOTUS ruled in Katz that there is an expectation of privacy when conductinga phone conversation, therefore, a warrant would be needed in order to not run afoul of the 4th Am.

We are at war.

You want to fight a war against an international enemy using Constitutional constraints?

YOu need to read a little history of the 1940's. LOTS of REAL Constitutional rights were temporarily violated.

Amerca survived, Chiken Little.

Quoted: Damn that pesky "due process" crap, right?

US citizens and foreign nationals who deal with terrorists don't expect "due process" which is why they are secretive. They expect to use "due process" as a defense when they are caught.

The SCOTUS ruled in Katz that there is an expectation of privacy when conductinga phone conversation, therefore, a warrant would be needed in order to not run afoul of the 4th Am.

People who converse with terrorists expect their privacy to be violated! Do you think they are using disposable cell phones and couriers because the believe in privacy rights?

I'll sum up the whole thing this way.

"Consider the source."

These allegations of Bush violating the law are from the SAME people who've been trying to destroy him since the day he announced for office.

They lack credibility.

So I'll not extend their latest smear campaign any.

Quoted: Quoted: So the Constitution is just a piece of paper, then? It can be tossed to the side the minute anyone utters the word "terrorist?" Until the government declares martial law, the Constitution is still in effect and the government must abide by it. Actually, you're completely wrong! You must be thinking about the Bill of Rights, which limit 'gubment power.

Uh, no. The Constitution defines the separation of powers, which we are talking about here. We're also talking about the fourth amendment, so I'll give you partial credit for being pendantic.

Quoted: There isn't anything in there that says the 'gubment can't monitor the activity of foreign terrorists (and their supporters) on US soil.

Civilian government: yes, Military: no. Therefore, "spying" on anyone inside the United States must be done by the civie authorities (CIA/FBI/NSA). If the military is not doing it, then it does not fall under the CiC.

Quoted: Quoted: The President does not hold unilateral power in his position as CiC; this has been covered by the SCOTUS in the Youngstown, et al v. Sawyer. No, he does not  have unilateral power. But he does have command over our warmaking apparatus as CiC. So he should be telling the CIA/NSA to spy on terrorists outside and inside the USA, and those that suspected of supporting them, because we are waging war against terrorists.

The FBI/CIA/NSA are not military. Besides, he can tell them to do whatever he wants to as long as it falls under established law. In this case, that means going to the FISA court and obtaining a warrant to monitor calls. In fact, FISA allows for immediate wiretaps as long as a warrant is obtained with 72 hours. How hard is that?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm one of them. Yeah, and to your mind, WHAT is a "Terrorist"? And, what is the .gov's definition of a "terrorist"? If the .gov is going to surveil U.S. citizens, warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens is just asking for trouble and gives up yet a bunch of other rights. I'll take liberty over safety and security anyday of the week. What 'right' is being infringed by intercepting these phone calls? the fact that wire-taps require a warrant by a court under FICA shows that their is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone. Not being guaranteed privacy while using a public communications system it isn't public, it is private. The US government does not own the phone lines, US companies do. isn't exactly on par with illegal search and seizure, or being denied due process. keep on saying that, until this whole war on Islamic terrorism winds down and the democrats continue their attack on "domestic terrorism", you know, us gun owners. I guess there is nothing wrong with police officers using infra-red detectors to look inside your house for contraband, huh? It's hard to respond to the way you quoted, so I'll simply say this: Of course I choose liberty, and being left the fuck alone. That being said, in the modern world, ANY SEMBLANCE OF PRIVACY OR TRUE FREEDOM IS AN ILLUSION.

I agree that privacy is an illusion. However, that doesn't make their actions legal, constitutional, or ethical.  So privacy is an illusion. Would that make it right for me to bug your house?  

I would also say that the people who agree with this really don't have any clue how widespread it is and what they are listening to.  If this was really restricted to legitimate terror suspects there would be a better argument, but it isn't.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Newsflash - We are at WAR! In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities. And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years. So its still right to do that just because FDR did it? I don't have a problem with nukes being dropped or using flamethrowers, but censorship was bullshit, along with the government interfering with private businesses. Dude, what does "We are at WAR" mean? you can't win a war unless you use ALL the means necessary to win that war. FDR was right and so is GWB. This is 2005/6 and in a digital age spying needs to go digital as well. Since I work for a Airline, I WANT this to happen, I don't want anymore planes falling out of the sky because we "don't want to offend".

"We are at war" means that Congress has made a formal declaration of war. If it is used in the absence of a formal declaration of war then it means that someone is hoping you will be so frightened by the current emergency that you will willingly give up your constitutional rights.

Quoted: These allegations of Bush violating the law are from the SAME people who've been trying to destroy him since the day he announced for office.

They are not allegations; it is black-and-white in FISA. Just follow the fucking law.

Why isn't anyone concerned with the implications of this? The Left only cares because they are out to damage the President and the Right doesn't care because they have been sipping the POTUS punch since day one.

You people deserve what you get.


eta:

Quoted: "We are at war" means that Congress has made a formal declaration of war. If it is used in the absence of a formal declaration of war then it means that someone is hoping you will be so frightened by the current emergency that you will willingly give up your constitutional rights.

Thank God...someone gets it.

Quoted: Newsflash - We are at WAR! In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities. And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years.

When did Congress make the declaration of war? And against whom?

Quoted: Quoted: So the Constitution is just a piece of paper, then? It can be tossed to the side the minute anyone utters the word "terrorist?" Until the government declares martial law, the Constitution is still in effect and the government must abide by it. Actually, you're completely wrong! You must be thinking about the Bill of Rights, which limit 'gubment power. There isn't anything in there that says the 'gubment can't monitor the activity of foreign terrorists (and their supporters) on US soil.

There have been laws for a long time limiting the ability of the military and the intelligence services to spy on ordinary citizens. I can assure you that they have been doing such spying for at least forty years that I know of.

Quoted: I'll sum up the whole thing this way. "Consider the source." These allegations of Bush violating the law are from the SAME people who've been trying to destroy him since the day he announced for office. They lack credibility. So I'll not extend their latest smear campaign any.

What part of "he admitted it" don't you understand?

Quoted: Quoted: So the Constitution is just a piece of paper, then? It can be tossed to the side the minute anyone utters the word "terrorist?" Until the government declares martial law, the Constitution is still in effect and the government must abide by it. Actually, you're completely wrong! You must be thinking about the Bill of Rights, which limit 'gubment power. There isn't anything in there that says the 'gubment can't monitor the activity of foreign terrorists (and their supporters) on US soil. The President does not hold unilateral power in his position as CiC; this has been covered by the SCOTUS in the Youngstown, et al v. Sawyer. No, he does not  have unilateral power. But he does have command over our warmaking apparatus as CiC. So he should be telling the CIA/NSA to spy on terrorists outside and inside the USA, and those that suspected of supporting them, because we are waging war against terrorists.

Aren't the 'Bill of Rights' part of the Constitution of the United States of America?

BigDozer66

Quoted: Newsflash - We are at WAR! <snip>

Who are we at war with?  Currently: When and who did Congress declare war against?  When will the war be over?

There is some misplaced idea, on this board and in this country, that there is a "war on terrorism" and this allows the government to do things without following the BOR, Constitution, and the laws this country has passed.

The government needs to be reined in.  Lets finish these other "wars" we have "declared" also:

War on poverty: Poor people do not deserve any rights, lets kill all the poor people in the world.

War on drugs: Anyone associated with any type of drugs does not deserve any type of rights, lets kill them all.  

War in illiteracy: lets kill everyone who can't read.

There can be no war against a word, only against a nation.

Quoted: Quoted: Newsflash - We are at WAR! In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities. And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years. When did Congress make the declaration of war? And against whom?

Where in the Constitution does is dictate HOW Congress must "declare" war for us to BE at "war"?

Answer: It doesn't.

So by Congress authorizing the President to use the full force of the United States military to fight terrorist states and organizations, and providing the funds to do so sure sounds like they "declared" war.

Quoted: Uh, no. The Constitution defines the separation of powers, which we are talking about here. We're also talking about the fourth amendment, so I'll give you partial credit for being pendantic.

Wrong again man, sorry. The CiC isn't usurping the powers of the Congress and the Supreme Court by monitoring terrorists and their supporters on US soil. Anti-terror operations don't fall under the Legislative or Judicial branches, that's an Executive job.

Civilian government: yes, Military: no. Therefore, "spying" on anyone inside the United States must be done by the civie authorities (CIA/FBI/NSA). If the military is not doing it, then it does not fall under the CiC.

I'm sorry to point out the obvious, but the CIA/FBI/NSA chain of command goes to the CiC. Congress can call hearings or run oversight commitees, but day to day operations go through the Executive branch. Nobody reports to the Supreme Court and they have no command authority.

The FBI/CIA/NSA are not military.

But they will fall under Executive command when fighting non-state entities like terrorists. If those terrorists are being backed by foreign 'gubments, that's even more reason for the CiC to get on top of them.

Besides, he can tell them to do whatever he wants to as long as it falls under established law. In this case, that means going to the FISA court and obtaining a warrant to monitor calls. In fact, FISA allows for immediate wiretaps as long as a warrant is obtained with 72 hours. How hard is that?

Based on how the operators are acting on the field, it's too hard to get one in light of tracking shadowy terror cells. If it was easy, the Bush administration would have truckloads of warrants.

Quoted: They are not allegations; it is black-and-white in FISA. Just follow the fucking law. Why isn't anyone concerned with the implications of this? The Left only cares because they are out to damage the President and the Right doesn't care because they have been sipping the POTUS punch since day one. You people deserve what you get.

its always fun when people have to use profanity to ....well I don't really know why they do it.

re: FISA....

As I understand it, EVERY Prez since FIZA has conducted warrantless searches. Never a problem before UNTIL a group with a livid hatred of Bush decides its a problem.

Also, as I understand it, Congress gave Bush authorization to conduct warrantless searches. Take you beef up with Congress.

Sure I'm concerned about it. But I consider teh source. And I understand we are at war.

And the world works differently when youa re at war.

Sorry, but to think it doesn't is pollyannish.

We got guys in the field giving their LIVES to stop this enemy. A few hundred al Queda collaborators losing fictitious "rights" doesn't rate.

Quoted: Quoted: Far as I'm concerned, if you are chatting up al Queda, you are guity of treason and forfeit your rights. NOT that this bogus "right to privacy" is legit anyway. You have a right against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And its VERY reasonable to monitor people chatting with al Queda, ESPECIALLY if they are doing so internationally. Yep.

Yep.