America spying on terrorists without court approval

[RIROCKHOUND]

Skip;
What defines a terrorist or suspected terrorist?
Where is the line drawn. If I send an anti-Bush email to a buddy am I suddenly flagged and now they can read my library record? Where is the line drawn?
You really think Bush knows an F'ing thing about how savage and the 'reality' of our enemy? Bush knows what his people tell him to know.
So tell me who the Enemy is, if 'someone like TDF or Spence of me' doesn't know???
Maybe because you just typed Iraq and terrorist in the same sentance you're now pegged as a suspected terrorist how does that make you feel?
And typical conservative, can't admit something the Bush administration did wrong......

[CTSurf]

RI,
I am a conservative and will admit what and when Bush does something wrong, i.e., the borders, spending to name a few.

I think it is more accurate to say that Liberals/Democrats will not admit when he does something right. It is also accurate to say that they Liberals/Democrats will not admit when there party does anything wrong.
We all know that there is not much that they have done right!

[RIROCKHOUND]

First off:
I would admit to it it Bush was right; Immediatly after 9/11 I thought he was doing a pretty OK job; unfortunetly he has continued to duck and run on alot of issues.
As far as the last part; I'm leaving that alone. No flame wars

[CTSurf]

I think most everyone thought he was doing well then. But, like everything else, time has a way of making people forget why we are where we are today.

I was there on 9-11 and I will not forget why and where we are. It is a shame that the feelings of patriotism and pride in country are such a distant memory for so many.

No President is perfect. I think if more people remembered, we wouldn't be worrying about affording non-Americans civil rights providing by OUR consititution.

[spence]

Originally Posted by CTSurf

I think if more people remembered, we wouldn't be worrying about affording non-Americans civil rights providing by OUR consititution.

I think this is the problem...that's not really what this argument is about.

We have a process to ensure that exceptions to civil liberties (i.e. wiretaps, snooping email etc...) are applied lawfully to all people. The laws for non-citizens may be different, but we have no idea who's being watched do we?

Bush is asking the American people to let the policy makers judge who's a suspect and when their civil rights should be infringed in an effort to provide safety.

If history is any guide, then it's clear the Government has a track record of misusing similar authority under many administrations. Nixon illegally spied on Vietnam war protesters, even detaining them at times to silence dissent.

Even if Bush's intentions are good, it's a slippery slope they are well aware of and intentionally skirting. Existing law gives plenty of authority if used properly.

The old "I'm not worried because I'm not doing anything wrong" argument doesn't really cut it. I think Barak Obama said it best:

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Others are looking out for you, but are you returning the favor?

-spence

[CTSurf]

I am sure that there are some zealots that are abusing their power. The Clinton's used the IRS for example. Even Lincoln sent a dissenter to Canada.

In my opinion, the bottom line is that the need to "spy on Terrorists" still remains. If we gain valuable information is it not worth it? If we can prevent another 9-11 is that not worth it?

You said existing law gives plenty of authority is used properly. That is my point. They want to change existing law. The senators that want to change the law have forgotten that they have discussed this with the President on a dozen occassions. This is existing law

As far as Barak Obama's statement is concerned; I don't know of an Arab American family that has been abducted because of their country of origin. (If they were truely Citizens, then they were done a huge wrong.) I will willingly help those those that seek it, not those that demand it. I volunteer to adult reading programs, Big-Brother etc. These people want their lives to be better and are willing to do something on their own. I do not believe in being my brothers keeper. I will volunteer to be their coach, their mentor, their reading teacher, their friend, if they want. I am much less likely to do anything if they demand something.
.

Originally Posted by spence

I think this is the problem...that's not really what this argument is about.

We have a process to ensure that exceptions to civil liberties (i.e. wiretaps, snooping email etc...) are applied lawfully to all people. The laws for non-citizens may be different, but we have no idea who's being watched do we?

Bush is asking the American people to let the policy makers judge who's a suspect and when their civil rights should be infringed in an effort to provide safety.

If history is any guide, then it's clear the Government has a track record of misusing similar authority under many administrations. Nixon illegally spied on Vietnam war protesters, even detaining them at times to silence dissent.

Even if Bush's intentions are good, it's a slippery slope they are well aware of. Existing law gives plenty of authority if used properly.

The old "I'm not worried because I'm not doing anything wrong" argument doesn't really cut it. I think Barak Obama said it best:



Others are looking out for you, but are you returning the favor?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by CTSurf

In my opinion, the bottom line is that the need to "spy on Terrorists" still remains. If we gain valuable information is it not worth it? If we can prevent another 9-11 is that not worth it?

And from what I understand, there is nothing preventing the Govt from spying on terrorists today. Simply that if the suspect is an citizen the agency must report the activity for a warrant within 72 hours.

So why skip the oversight?

-spence

[Swimmer]

Yup, trash at the curb that you put out for B.F.I. is where law enforcement gets most of thier PC (probable cause) for anything intrusive such as search warrant or wiretaps, and it moves onward and upward from there. Once its on the curb its anybodys business what is in the bag(s). You don't need reasonable suspicion, which is less than PC. No one needs anything for trash. Lets see what can be had from trash; phone records, credit card receipts, and on and on and on...So if anybody wants to spy on anybody you start at the curb and if something is amiss in the trash that will eventually get JOHN LAW into your life on a more personal scale.

This post is starting to bore me, Spence hasn't come out with anything novel in his last several post. Same old poo.........

SKIPN..this is only entertainment for these guys relax.