![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Overcast ~ |
|
 Email link
 Read comments (10)
 Blog archive
 Share link
Warrantless Wiretapping PollPosted Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 3:41 PM
Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Who Has the Answer??(29 ~ 1:57 PM, Mar 6)
Free Cell Phone Calls
What I Love About Windows 7
The Side Effects of Increased Communication
The War Expands
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
This is actually more than just a black and white issue. There are extenuating circumstances that surround this particularly volatile issue. Just as the question "Should the U.S. allow torture?" would draw many different scenarios in people's answers, you can't possibly consider that to be a "yes or no" question. Personally, I would answer yes to that question. My reasoning is this: If someone knew where one of my family members was and that they were going to be killed, I would be 100% behind anything that could be done to recover my loved ones. Therefore, if it were a strictly yes or no question, I would have to answer yes. If we were allowed to elaborate on our answers, I believe the majority of our citizens would answer no, but if there were American lives that hung in the balance, that's different. I don't think that the government should have a "blank check" for wiretapping. Unfortunately we don't have people in our government that can be trusted to make the distinction between an "urgent, national security" issue, and someone in the Navy that is in port in Dubai or Bahrain and are talking to their grandmother back home. Our government agencies tend to say "we've got the ability to monitor in this situation, we might as well monitor in all situations".
I doubt many people have a problem with the old system that involved judicial review. This poll is about warrantless wiretapping.
I have a problem with torture but since this poll isn't about torture then I won't elaborate. LOL!
I agree with Thom though . . . even though I said no to this poll, I do agree there are times when special needs arise when they need to act as quickly as possible and not be bound by judicial process. Unfortunately though I do not believe in our government's ability to distinguish when that is appropriate.
I am certainly against any wiretapping without a warrant. If they are going to do that, then it violates EVERY Americans civil rights.
Rather than do that profile the people that have been responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks in this country and abroad.
William
I have no problem with the wiretapping without a warrant. They are not listening to regular people conversations. They are targeting the terrorist. This is for the security of our Nation. Everyone is to worried about their rights being violated. Obey the law and do what is right and you won't have to worry.
Cordell, can you imagine a day when laws enacted in this country for one purpose are used for a totally different and not quite as just purpose? Surely the founding fathers understood something about illegal searches and seizures. Here's a great idea cordell, let's let a handful of terrorists affect changes to the basic American principles that have stood for over 200 years. No thank you.
If they're wiretapping for terrorists, they need look no further than the White House.
I cannot believe your comment jesuslovesevery1 ! Do you actually believe there are terrorists at the White House? Are you calling our President a terrorist? Please answer!
That is not a fair poll. Thom & cordell are thinking right. Nothing is black and white. Not a good question.
I cannot believe your comment jesuslovesevery1 ! Do you actually believe there are terrorists at the White House? Are you calling our President a terrorist? Please answer!
-- Posted by daisydotcom on Sun, Oct 28, 2007, at 6:58 PM
I'll speak for jesuslovesevery1, YES there are terrorists in the White House. The currend administration used fear tactics (terrorists) to get the American public on its side. The government used fake stores (terrorists) to tell us there were threats. The government started a war based on ideologies and trying to oust a religious group (terrorists)... And lastly, they either knew or planned the events that unfolded that day, because Rumsfield, Cheney, then Powell, and Bush's dad had all planned to invade Iraq a decade prior to 2003. It is all part of some unfinished business. Plain and simple.
Adolph Hitler once said, "What good fortune for the government, that the people do not think." Thus, will you think or buy into the never ending propaganda. If people will LIE to start a war, how can you trust them with ANYTHING else.