I understand that you want to use every means available to defend this country from Islamic Fundamentalists who are bent on killing Americans and attacking this nation.

My problem with all of this is that I remember the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton felt that domestic terrorism was a greater threat to America than international terrorism and militant islam. Clinton directed his law enforcement efforts towards going after domestic terrorists (like christians and gun owners). Bill Clinton killed dozens of Americans that he deemed to be domestic terrorists and created entirely new categories of domestic terrorists such as "militias", "doomsday groups" and "survivalists". Mean while Al Queda hit America at least 6 times (first WTC bombing, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, USS Cole, bombing of US military barracks in Riyadh Saudi Arabia), grew it's terrorist network, settled into a new home in Afghanistan, and began training and preparing for 9/11.

So, here is my question to you: Would you still support the Patriot Act and NSA wiretaps if President Bush were not in office?

I am against the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps, but it isn't because I want Al Queda to attack us again. I'm worried about the precedent that these powers set and I am worried about what the next president will do with them (especially if it is another Clinton). I could not imagine what America would be like if Bill Clinton had these powers, and I am afraid to think about what America will be like if Hillary inherits them. I'm not worried about Bush abusing the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretaps, but who knows who is going to win in 2008?

If they were used exactly the same way against exactly the same people, I would have exactly the same response.

Quoted: If they were used exactly the same way against exactly the same people, I would have exactly the same response.

But that's the point.

You can't give powers to fight "terrorism" to the Office of the President and then expect all presidents to use it exactly the same. We are handing over a power and we have no idea what future presidents will do with that power. The only way to safeguard ourselves would be to explicitly define terrorists in the Patriot Act as militant islamic fundamentalists, and we know that isn't going to happen.

There is no definitive answer.    Any power can be abused at ANY time.   Vigilance is key.

Quoted: Quoted: If they were used exactly the same way against exactly the same people, I would have exactly the same response. But that's the point. You can't give powers to fight "terrorism" to the Office of the President and then expect all presidents to use it exactly the same. We are handing over a power and we have no idea what future presidents will do with that power. The only way to safeguard ourselves would be to explicitly define terrorists in the Patriot Act as militant islamic fundamentalists, and we know that isn't going to happen.

The only thing new about NSA wiretaps is Bush used them this time… there was no indignation when Clinton did.

NOTHING is being given as far as NSA wiretaps the prerogatives of the President are well established in this area… it has been done many times before. You seem to have missed the fact Clinton DID use the exactly the same powers domestically and in non-national security matters.

The Patriot Act gives almost nothing that was not already in use against organized crime it just allows these measures against terror suspects.

So it's not WHO is using it, it's WHAT they are doing with it then?

Quoted: So it's not WHO is using it, it's WHAT they are doing with it then?

Partially, but I think that the WHO goes hand in hand with the WHAT. Bush believes (rightfully so) that international terrorists are the greatest threat to the United States. Clinton believed that domestic terrorists were the greatest threat to the United States, and there are many Dims who still believe the same thing. Look at the speeches that they make prior to introducing gun control legislation. Who are they sighting as threats? "Terrorists" (without distinction between "domestic terrorists" and international terrorists), "doomsday groups", "militias" and criminals. Alot of Demonrats seem to think that Americans are the greatest threat to America and I am concerned about what the next Demonrat administration will do. Especially with the legitimacy that the Patriot Act gives. Do you want to see a return of the Clinton days? I sure don't.

Quoted: I understand that you want to use every means available to defend this country from Islamic Fundamentalists who are bent on killing Americans and attacking this nation. My problem with all of this is that I remember the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton felt that domestic terrorism was a greater threat to America than international terrorism and militant islam. Clinton directed his law enforcement efforts towards going after domestic terrorists (like christians and gun owners). Bill Clinton killed dozens of Americans that he deemed to be domestic terrorists and created entirely new categories of domestic terrorists such as "militias", "doomsday groups" and "survivalists". Mean while Al Queda hit America at least 6 times (first WTC bombing, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, USS Cole, bombing of US military barracks in Riyadh Saudi Arabia), grew it's terrorist network, settled into a new home in Afghanistan, and began training and preparing for 9/11. So, here is my question to you: Would you still support the Patriot Act and NSA wiretaps if President Bush were not in office? I am against the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps, but it isn't because I want Al Queda to attack us again. I'm worried about the precedent that these powers set and I am worried about what the next president will do with them (especially if it is another Clinton). I could not imagine what America would be like if Bill Clinton had these powers, and I am afraid to think about what America will be like if Hillary inherits them. I'm not worried about Bush abusing the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretaps, but who knows who is going to win in 2008?

The PATRIOT act has the right requirements for warrants & judicial review in the rright places, so yes, I'd support it...

As for the NSA wiretaps, so long as they were doing the EXACT SAME THING they are doing now ( tapping the phones of FOREIGNERS OUTSIDE THE USA and catching (among other things) calls made to or taken from the USA) - regardless of who the target was, I'd be ok with that too - it's good spying, not an invasion of someone's rights against UNREASONABLE search & siezure (remember, you DO NOT HAVE a right to privacy - that was 'invented' by Roe v Wade & will eventually be overturned)...

I would not be ok with domestic-to-domestic tapping without warrants, but THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON..... As long as the party being monitored is a foriegner, that party has no rights & we're just spying on the enemy. The rules change when the party being monitored (not those they talk to, but the actual target) is a US citizen talking to other US citizens...

I have misgivings about it.  Right now I don't have a firm answer.  I'm not comfortable with the "we'll only use it on the really bad people" because as you said, all it takes is an adjustment of definitions and suddenly my MODCC shoot might be a domestic terrorist training camp with the wrong president and AG.  

So I guess right now I'm still trying to fully understand what is being done and what the law is regaurding it.  I would prefer some method to check that power so that it is not at one man's descression when to use it.

It should be illegal for a dummycrap to be president.

I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on.
The ends do not justify the means.

What's next?

Quoted: If they were used exactly the same way against exactly the same people, I would have exactly the same response.

Bingo.

Provided I found the gov't doing it to be on the whole trustworthy, as I do the Bush admin.

I would make it require renewal every two years, expiring automatically.

Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next?

We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency.

Quoted: Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next? We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency.

And when you get vaporized by an al Queda nuke, feel free to debate the merits of proactive interception of phone converstions from Valhalla.

'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.' Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next? We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency. And when you get vaporized by an al Queda nuke, feel free to debate the merits of proactive interception of phone converstions from Valhalla.

Speak of the Devil...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next? We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency. And when you get vaporized by an al Queda nuke, feel free to debate the merits of proactive interception of phone converstions from Valhalla. Speak of the Devil...

I WAS speaking of you, but don't regard you as "the devil."   I would use teh term "dupe."

The POINT is the MOST essential liberty is life. Until that right is secured, debating the other rights is superfluous.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next? We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency. And when you get vaporized by an al Queda nuke, feel free to debate the merits of proactive interception of phone converstions from Valhalla. Speak of the Devil... I WAS speaking of you, but don't regard you as "the devil."   I would use teh term "dupe." The POINT is the MOST essential liberty is life. Until that right is secured, debating the other rights is superfluous.

Mmmmm, I love the taste of that boot!  <Slurp, slurp, slurp>  Oh, please protect me from the boogeyman!  I'm so afraid of the dark!  Some horrible man wants to hurt me because of my freedoms!  Please, police, coddle me until I'm no longer frightened of the Mad Arab!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next? We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency. And when you get vaporized by an al Queda nuke, feel free to debate the merits of proactive interception of phone converstions from Valhalla. Speak of the Devil... I WAS speaking of you, but don't regard you as "the devil."   I would use teh term "dupe." The POINT is the MOST essential liberty is life. Until that right is secured, debating the other rights is superfluous.

"Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henery

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjiman Franklin

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. " - Samuel Adams

It seems that not everyone would agree with your view on liberty.

Quoted: "Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henery "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjiman Franklin "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. " - Samuel Adams It seems that not everyone would agree with your view on liberty.

The point being, there is no absolute "right to privacy" re: telephone conversations.

And I beleive Franklins quote sets the proper context - you don't surrender ESSENTIAL liberties.

War ALWAYS requires the surrender of certain liberties. (Ask ANY soldier the liberties he has surrendered to BE a soldier) Just not the essential ones.

Quoted: Quoted: "Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henery "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjiman Franklin "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. " - Samuel Adams It seems that not everyone would agree with your view on liberty. The point being, there is no absolute "right to privacy" re: telephone conversations. And I beleive Franklins quote sets the proper context - you don't surrender ESSENTIAL liberties. War ALWAYS requires the surrender of certain liberties. (Ask ANY soldier the liberties he has surrendered to BE a soldier) Just not the essential ones.

True, there is no specifically enumerated right to privacy in the constitution. There is however an enumerated right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures. The constitution does not explicitly forbid the government from tapping peoples phones or reading people's e-mail but these things didn't exist when the constitution was written. The right to be secure from unlawful searches and siezures logically and legally extends to phone conversations and e-mails.

But as for privacy, look at the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " The constitution does not give the goverment the right to surreptitiously gather information on US citizens therefore the government has no right to do so. Especially without a warrant.

Like I said, I'm not against Bush using NSA wiretaps to track down militant islamics. What I'm worried about is how the next President will use it. You and I are only 3 years away from the possibility of a return to the Clinton days.  

Quoted: Quoted: If they were used exactly the same way against exactly the same people, I would have exactly the same response. But that's the point. You can't give powers to fight "terrorism" to the Office of the President and then expect all presidents to use it exactly the same. We are handing over a power and we have no idea what future presidents will do with that power. The only way to safeguard ourselves would be to explicitly define terrorists in the Patriot Act as militant islamic fundamentalists, and we know that isn't going to happen.

I agree.  That's the problem with so many "mechanisms."  Once in place, they can be used any way one wants.  Actually, it's not just a precedent, but a system/mechanism  which remains in place to be used at the pleasure of whomever is in charge.  If one looks at it objectively, National Socialism worked very well the first couple of years to put Germany back on its feet.  But, just look waht the power did to those in charge, and what they did to everyone else with such power.  

Quoted: True, there is no specifically enumerated right to privacy in the constitution. There is however an enumerated right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures. The constitution does not explicitly forbid the government from tapping peoples phones or reading people's e-mail but these things didn't exist when the constitution was written. The right to be secure from unlawful searches and siezures logically and legally extends to phone conversations and e-mails.

UNREASONABLE. The word is NOT "unlawful" the word is unreasonable.

Which sets the ENTIRE context.

I find it EMINENTLY reasonable to be monitoring the DOMESTIC communications of SPECIFIC NAMED foreign al Queda operatives. I think it would be dereliction of duty NOT to do so.

But as for privacy, look at the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " The constitution does not give the goverment the right to surreptitiously gather information on US citizens therefore the government has no right to do so. Especially without a warrant.

That isn't the context of the tenth. AT BEST, the tenth makes wiretapping a state issue, rather than a Federal issue. But then the Prez is the C in C and I don't think we want the individual states condcuting the war against al Queda.

Like I said, I'm not against Bush using NSA wiretaps to track down militant islamics. What I'm worried about is how the next President will use it. You and I are only 3 years away from the possibility of a return to the Clinton days.

Clinton et al DO NOT bother themselves with Constitutional precedent when trying to shread teh Constitution.

Clinton et all did everything they did WITHOUT any precedent.

And EVERY Presidency is at risk of abusing existing law.

I don't think the slippery slope argument works here.

The poll isn't set up properly. It should be a poll between Clinton and Bush. I would support continuing the Patriot Act and the wiretaps, but not if Clinton was in office! That's why people don't pay much heed to polls because it turns into a referendum on Bush only. Give us some specific choices and you'll see the real truth.

You don't let everyone in your family use all the tools. Some tools are good in some hands, and dangerous in others. That's why American voters elected GW Bush to be CiC twice.

Quoted: Quoted: True, there is no specifically enumerated right to privacy in the constitution. There is however an enumerated right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures. The constitution does not explicitly forbid the government from tapping peoples phones or reading people's e-mail but these things didn't exist when the constitution was written. The right to be secure from unlawful searches and siezures logically and legally extends to phone conversations and e-mails. UNREASONABLE. The word is NOT "unlawful" the word is unreasonable. Which sets the ENTIRE context. I find it EMINENTLY reasonable to be monitoring the DOMESTIC communications of SPECIFIC NAMED foreign al Queda operatives. I think it would be dereliction of duty NOT to do so.

You are correct, the wording is "unreasonable". My mistake.

However, once again under your logic an administration that views owners of "assault weapons" as being a threat to the United States and feels that the only people who own such weapons have nefarious intention would not find it unreasonable to spy on people who own "assault weapons".

But as for privacy, look at the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " The constitution does not give the goverment the right to surreptitiously gather information on US citizens therefore the government has no right to do so. Especially without a warrant. That isn't the context of the tenth. AT BEST, the tenth makes wiretapping a state issue, rather than a Federal issue. But then the Prez is the C in C and I don't think we want the individual states condcuting the war against al Queda.

And I don't want the another C in C to ever again decide that American citizens are a threat to the national security and violating their rights in the name of defending America. I would always prefer to err on the side of liberty and the rights of the people over giving the government additional power.

Like I said, I'm not against Bush using NSA wiretaps to track down militant islamics. What I'm worried about is how the next President will use it. You and I are only 3 years away from the possibility of a return to the Clinton days.   Clinton et al DO NOT bother themselves with Constitutional precedent when trying to shread teh Constitution. Clinton et all did everything they did WITHOUT any precedent. And EVERY Presidency is at risk of abusing existing law. I don't think the slippery slope argument works here.

The slippery slope argument always works because it is something that every American must remain constantly vigilant against. In this case, it really doesn't matter who started doing what first (Clinton or Bush). What matters is whether we stop it now while there is a window of opportunity or allow it to continue. By allowing it to continue we only open the door for the next step to be taken at some later date.

You do realize that Jimmy Carter and Clinton ALSO authorized these EXACT same sort of wiretaps, a fact the press forgets to mention.

Quoted: However, once again under your logic an administration that views owners of "assault weapons" as being a threat to the United States and feels that the only people who own such weapons have nefarious intention would not find it unreasonable to spy on people who own "assault weapons".

Did Clinton NEED the precedent of warantless wiretaps to do that?

No.

So warantless wiretaps don't have anything to do with the potential abuses Constitution haters might attempt in the future.

[ The slippery slope argument always works because it is something that every American must remain constantly vigilant against. .

That justification for vigilance - NOT for irrationally hamstringing ourselves in the war on terror.

Quoted: The poll isn't set up properly. It should be a poll between Clinton and Bush. I would support continuing the Patriot Act and the wiretaps, but not if Clinton was in office! That's why people don't pay much heed to polls because it turns into a referendum on Bush only. Give us some specific choices and you'll see the real truth. You don't let everyone in your family use all the tools. Some tools are good in some hands, and dangerous in others. That's why American voters elected GW Bush to be CiC twice.

American voters also elected Clinton into office twice.

Bill Clinton is gone, never to return. I only use him as an example of what COULD happen. But 2008 is only a couple of years away and at this point no one knows what WILL happen. From my point of view we are in the middle of a national debate on tools that may be dangerous in the hands of a future administration, and once we allow a President to have those tools we cannot take them from another President (unless they keep the sunset on certain provisions of the Patrios ACT, which Bush wants to see made permenant). As I see it our choices are between potentially allowing these tools to fall into the wrong hands or taking them away now. Given the danger that these tools would pose if the fell into the wrong hands, I would choose to take them away now.

Quoted: The slippery slope argument always works because it is something that every American must remain constantly vigilant against. . That justification for vigilance - NOT for irrationally hamstringing ourselves in the war on terror.

There will always be some enemy. Before the War on Terror there was "Domestic Terrorism" and the War on Drugs, before that there was Communism and before that there was Facism. Each of these cost us some of our freedoms. Where do we draw the line?

Quoted: There will always be some enemy. Before the War on Terror there was "Domestic Terrorism" and the War on Drugs, before that there was Communism and before that there was Facism. Each of these cost us some of our freedoms. Where do we draw the line?

You do what you gotta do.

Islaamic fantasim proved particualrly effective in scoring the ONLY attack on American soil in over 50 years.

They killed 3,000. They ALMOST killed 50,000.

And besides I do NOT beleive the FF would consider privacy of communications with THE ENEMY DURING A TIME OF WAR to be a freedom to be protected by teh Constitution.

Quoted: Quoted: There will always be some enemy. Before the War on Terror there was "Domestic Terrorism" and the War on Drugs, before that there was Communism and before that there was Facism. Each of these cost us some of our freedoms. Where do we draw the line? You do what you gotta do. Islaamic fantasim proved particualrly effective in scoring the ONLY attack on American soil in over 50 years. They killed 3,000. They ALMOST killed 50,000. And besides I do NOT beleive the FF would consider privacy of communications with THE ENEMY DURING A TIME OF WAR to be a freedom to be protected by teh Constitution.

Did the government start reading people's correspondance without warrants during the war of 1812 to determine whether or not anyone was collaborating with the enemy?

I'll split on your question.

I think the patriot domestic intellegence spying act goes head-over-heels too far. I'm not a tin foil wearing paranoid (most of the time) but there's a bunch of things in this act that have given me cause for concern.

The domestic wire taps aren't a big of a worry to me.

Quoted: American voters also elected Clinton into office twice.

Not in the context of the War on Terror and expectations of what a President and our spy agencies are going to do to fight terrorists.

Bill Clinton is gone, never to return. I only use him as an example of what COULD happen. But 2008 is only a couple of years away and at this point no one knows what WILL happen. From my point of view we are in the middle of a national debate on tools that may be dangerous in the hands of a future administration, and once we allow a President to have those tools we cannot take them from another President (unless they keep the sunset on certain provisions of the Patrios ACT, which Bush wants to see made permenant). As I see it our choices are between potentially allowing these tools to fall into the wrong hands or taking them away now. Given the danger that these tools would pose if the fell into the wrong hands, I would choose to take them away now.

Wrong. You don't deprive a good carpernter the use of existing tools because you're worried that the next carpenter you hire is an idiot. Why should Bush's hands be tied because someone who isn't in the White House might do something "bad" at some point in the future? Why should we lay off the pressure on terrorists now based on an unknown future? It doesn't help me in any way to stop the current CiC from hunting terrorists via no-warrant wiretaps because I'm afraid some Democrap is going to be elected years down the road.

Quoted: Did the government start reading people's correspondance without warrants during the war of 1812 to determine whether or not anyone was collaborating with the enemy?

I sure hope they did!

Quoted: There is no definitive answer.    Any power can be abused at ANY time.   Vigilance is key.

Exact-o-mundo!

The whole issue couldn't have been explained any better.

I supported Clinton's actions in getting wiretaps for Russian spies, so why would I have a problem with Bush?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next? We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency. And when you get vaporized by an al Queda nuke, feel free to debate the merits of proactive interception of phone converstions from Valhalla. Speak of the Devil... I WAS speaking of you, but don't regard you as "the devil."   I would use teh term "dupe." The POINT is the MOST essential liberty is life. Until that right is secured, debating the other rights is superfluous. Mmmmm, I love the taste of that boot!  <Slurp, slurp, slurp>  Oh, please protect me from the boogeyman!  I'm so afraid of the dark!  Some horrible man wants to hurt me because of my freedoms!  Please, police, coddle me until I'm no longer frightened of the Mad Arab!

Nuts.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There will always be some enemy. Before the War on Terror there was "Domestic Terrorism" and the War on Drugs, before that there was Communism and before that there was Facism. Each of these cost us some of our freedoms. Where do we draw the line? You do what you gotta do. Islaamic fantasim proved particualrly effective in scoring the ONLY attack on American soil in over 50 years. They killed 3,000. They ALMOST killed 50,000. And besides I do NOT beleive the FF would consider privacy of communications with THE ENEMY DURING A TIME OF WAR to be a freedom to be protected by teh Constitution. Did the government start reading people's correspondance without warrants during the war of 1812 to determine whether or not anyone was collaborating with the enemy?

They SURE AS HECK did during WWII.  They found notes about troop movements and all sorts of nice stuff hidden in letters to Germans overseas.  They were right in doing it THEN and they are right in DOING it now.  You folks who are up in arms about this know you are helping enable future terrorist attacks, right?  Whose side are you friggin on?  Don't say the American People's side, because that's who gets killed if the terrorist sets off a nuclear bomb somewhere because the ACLU was able to prevent us from learning what we needed to learn.  Grow the heck up.

As long as al-Qaeda was a real threat, of course I'd support the Patriot Act and other measures to make their operations harder.

Your questions supposes that somehow I have some sort of especial faith or loyalty to Bush that allows me to grant what you see as egreious exercises or abuses of government power, and that if we get a president as ethically-challenged as Clinton you'll see the wiretaps turned on people like gun owners and right-wing types and that president's political enemies, rather than terrorists.

Well, couple things:

1.  If you are a law-abiding citizen and aren't tied up in violent anti-government groups, you're unlikely to be scrutinized by the government.

2.  Lets say you are breaking the law and an NSA operation picks up some communique you made leading to your indictment.  Your lawyer will probably get that  evidence thrown out.  If you're al-Qaeda you'll probably be in a military tribunal if you're lucky, or in some secret prison if you're not.  These aren't ordinary prisoners or citizens.  Their basically spies in an active war on our country trying to kill as many civilians as they can, so they dont get the same treatment as a citizen criminal, despite what liberals tell you.

3.  If you the president abandon wiretaps and everything else in your power to stop terrorist attacks, you are de facto making yourself responsible for future terrorist attacks. Bush was in power what 8 months when the terrorists attacked, and his enemies did everything they could to make it look like he was responsible, was asleep at the switch, could have done more.  So what happens when he does more?  They freak out even more.

There's no consistency or principle behind criticizing Bush over this, because you know if Bush did everything his critics wanted and there was another attack, they would savage him for not doing enough to guard the country.  As for your fears, Clinton was able to stomp all over gun owners' civil rights, abortion opponents, his critics and enemies through the FBI and IRS, roasted 80 people alive at Waco, threw some poor kid back into the gulag to spite anti-communists in Florida, and use the DOJ as a shield against all the crooked shit he did to raise money for the Democratic Party.  All without the Patriot Act or NSA wiretaps.  Oh, and all while ignoring al-Qaeda as much as possible.

I guess the part of the Patriot Act that bothers me more than anything, is the fact the Feds can get a list of everybody who lawfully purchased guns through an FFL.  The FFL has to keep a permanent record of every gun purchased forever. The Feds want that list.  Now how many terrorists are going to be on that list and what will the Feds do with the rest of the list?  It amounts to a defacto registration of your guns.  If anybody trusts politicians (demo, repubs, libertarians etc) to be respectful of your constitutional rights you are a fool.

It cracks me up when I see posts of how you will monitor what the politicians are doing and then somehow make a difference by voting, writing, or calling your rep.   Maybe you aren't as old as I am, but most of the time you are being patronized. They could give a shit about you and what you think!

Call me a cynic, but I think the horse left the barn long before we tried to close the door.

Quoted: If they were used exactly the same way against exactly the same people, I would have exactly the same response.

+1

Would you still support the Patriot Act and NSA wiretaps if President Bush were not in office?

  ---NO !    Sounds like treson to me  

Ka-bump to find out what other people think

Quoted: Ka-bump to find out what other people think

I posted a similar question at black-rifles.com and got completely different results.

Quoted: Quoted: Ka-bump to find out what other people think I posted a similar question at black-rifles.com and got completely different results.

Could you please provide a link for that?
I'm really interested in what everybody has to say.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ka-bump to find out what other people think I posted a similar question at black-rifles.com and got completely different results. Could you please provide a link for that? I'm really interested in what everybody has to say.

Link IM'd

Quoted: You do what you gotta do.

sounds like Heinrich Himmler

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's wrong. It flies in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. The ends do not justify the means. What's next? We have a board full of boot-licking Kommisars, afraid of the boogeyman.  They hate individual liberty, small government, and self-sufficiency. And when you get vaporized by an al Queda nuke, feel free to debate the merits of proactive interception of phone converstions from Valhalla. Speak of the Devil... I WAS speaking of you, but don't regard you as "the devil."   I would use teh term "dupe." The POINT is the MOST essential liberty is life. Until that right is secured, debating the other rights is superfluous. Mmmmm, I love the taste of that boot!  <Slurp, slurp, slurp>  Oh, please protect me from the boogeyman!  I'm so afraid of the dark!  Some horrible man wants to hurt me because of my freedoms!  Please, police, coddle me until I'm no longer frightened of the Mad Arab!

I was going to make an intelligent reply to this thread.  Then I saw the comments by Peak_Troll and decided to not waste my time.

The wire tapping issue will not go far.  Bush had no political advantage for authorizing the wire tapes.

Most people would agree the subjects of the wire taps were indeed of interest to national security.  The Democrats are just digging themselves into a hole be chasing the issue, and will come out looking limp.