Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by KenH, Jan 8, 2006.
He is either authorized or he is not. A poll doesn't answer that question.
The poll just shows that many Americans don't know the rules of engagement for terrorism.
Or that the American people understand the U.S. constitution better than the executive branch thought.
Actually, the way the question is worded has a lot to do with the response. It would be pretty easy to rephrase the question and get opposite results.
Would you mind showing us where in the Constitution we're told that a warrant is needed to monitor the enemy's communication in a time of war?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. </font>[/QUOTE]Right. The problem is that the courts have consistently ruled that this does not apply to communications among the enemy during a time of war.
Good try, though.
I have not argued against monitoring the communications of the enemy. The problem is the warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens without probable cause.
i don"t believe that!
But what we're talking about in this case is the monitoring of phone calls by and to Al Queda members.
There is no Utopia, never will be no matter how much liberals daydream about them. Nations hate America because democracy and free enterprise works. If wiretapping, phone eavesdropping and video cameras posted on every street corner helps protect our citizens from foreigners who don't like us, then that's how it ought to be. When it comes down to it, if we need to do what Bush is accused of - nation building - then let's do it if it's in America's best interest. The world needs America. We've stood in the gap against Hitler, Hiro-Hito, Saddam Hussein and other godless dictators and we need to be able to continue to do so. The world is a better place because of America and I'm tired of people who don't have a clue apologizing for her. Traitors like Harry Belafonte are awfully free with their condemnation of our President - and thus our nation, but Belafonte hides behind the Constitution that President Bush protects. The hypocracy of liberals is shameful.
The problem is the warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens without probable cause.
If an American citizen is on the phone with an al Queda member, is that conversation protected by the Fourth Amendment? In his role as Commander in Chief, in defending this country, is he not authorized to do this? If your answer is yes, then as long as terrorist scum can recruit Americans, they can hide behind them to kill other Americans. Ken, we're in a war against these scum.
If suspect that if such a conversation were protected by Amendment IV, a warrant may or may not not change that one way or another. No offense to any of the previous commentators on this thread, but I'm not as of yet covinced that Amendment IV protects certain phone activity as discussed in this thread. I'm not adverse to changing my mind on that position, however.
That's true John. We really should be making Amendments to the USC rather than attempting to stretch statements that could not have foreseen modern technologies and considerations.
If a US citizen is taking or placing calls to an al Qaeda member, that would be probable cause - why not get the warrant? We're not talking about not wiretapping here - we're talking about getting it authorized. In the current climate, that should be baby city, if the part about communicating with al Qaeda operatives is actually true.
So why would they not want to get a warrant? Will someone please make the case for that?
Good point, Daisy!
I support President Bush and the War on Terror but I agree with Daisy although I am somewhat conflicted.
While I personally have nothing to hide, this part of the Patriot Act (or misuse thereof) has the potential to turn America into a police state with Big Brother turning our phones into a one-way CB radio for them.
This overreach problem is not so much a party affiliation problem but an individual judgment call problem. Overriding the foundational principle of checks-and-balances can have a serious and dangerous result.
As an example, remember Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 to intern Japanese American citizens (over 100,000) in "concentration" camps?
[ January 10, 2006, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
Other polls don't agree with AP.
January 4, 2005--Americans are generally comfortable with the current balance between national security concerns and individual liberties.
Nearly a third of the respondents in a Rasmussen Reports survey (32%) say that our legal system worries too much about individual rights at the expense of national security. A similar number (29%) say there is too much concern for national security at the expense of individual liberties. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the current balance is about right.
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans say the President did not break the law.
56% are wrong/misinformed. To handcuff this or any other president, who's responsibility it has been, is irresponsible.
It is simply another political ploy, to cast aspersions on this president. He has publically admitted a love for Jesus Christ, you know, and the powers of darkness can not abide it.