Here are some stats that ought to silence you and people like you on this topic: According to Rasmussen polling: 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. 51% of Democrats support NSA monitoring A scant 25% of Americans believe the terrorists are winning the war The nation is bouncing back against this alleged injustice? Um, no actually it's the opposite. Let me know when you guys get back in touch with reality. TOODLES!
Sure do. The liberals are out of touch Don't believe the liberal liars. They are in the tiny minority in opinion.
I'll regret this, but I'm really just in and out here. Not sticking around to get called a terrorist loving Christian hater again. As for the number of people who support eavesdropping on conversations with terrorists, I'm surprised it's not 100%. That poll question doesn't ask if the respondent supports eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants. Ask that question and the support will drop. Ask it again to reflect the fact that warrants can be issued up to 72 hours AFTER the fact and it will drop further. Never mind the fact that all indications are that the warrantless spying has not been limited to international communication nor limited to communication with suspected terrorists. The Rasmussen question is bogus. Worded that way, I support it too. I also would not posit that terrorists are winning the "war." What they are in danger of "winning" is something far more important to our national identity. When the article asks 'has bin Laden won' it's not talking about a war. It's talking about the fact that bin Laden has caused this free nation of curtailing liberties in favor of security. If Jorge had read the article he'd know that. Patrick Henry was right. I'm out.
Um, yes it most certainly does. Re-read it. 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. This is the scenario in which it was used, in case you didn't know, Batman. Nope. You are wrong. The question *was* asked. Why do you refuse to believe it? 25% of Americans believe the terrorists are winning the war. The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with the author of your article. Why would you post it here if you didn't agree with it?
batman nailed it, sorry t_j, that poll is irrelevent - did you think we wouldn't notice that the question asked is different than what Bush is doing? next I guess you're going to tell us that Clinton and Carter ordered warrantless searches right?
Well, except for the fact that he's wrong. And so are you. The poll was worded properly. You guys are recognizing that you are in the tiny minority here and are grasping for anything. Lying in fact, to try to save face. Nice try. Re-read the poll.
grasping? Bush has authorized warrantless spying on US Citizens, the poll asks for people living in the United States, those two groups are not one and the same.
Cover your eyes and pretend like America supports your positions. You are in the minority. The very tiny minority. The people support NSA monitoring of al Qaeda. Period. That's the capacity in which it has been used. Deal with it. The people believe America, not the terrorists, is winning the war. Deal with it. When you and flaming moe are ready to deal with the fact that very few (outside of this forum) support your position, please UNCOVER.
I just realized Jorge might have actually mis-read my post. I didn't mean to imply Rasmussen left out "Americans." What he left out was "warrantless." I also support eavesdropping on American citizens when they talk to suspected terrorists and, again, I wonder why the number of supporters wasn't higher. What I don't support is warrantless spying on Americans, particularly when warrants can be obtained 72 hours after the spying goes down. That poll question was not asked by Rasmussen. As for the "winning the war" thing, I just have to believe Jorge is being his usual self. The writer of the article was clear on this and so was I.
For those in touch with reality, I just heard on tv that one of the main cases of NSA monitoring was listening in a guy who was talking about blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge. Who would NOT be in support of spying on known al Qaeda operatives who are communicating with US citizens? Seriously? Would you deny the US this key security measure at the risk of another large-scale attack? America has spoken on the issue. They support NSA monitoring. Heck, even a majority of Democrats support it. Our resident extremists are really standing alone on this one...
Nobody I know. I'm surprised anyone but the terrorists themselves would be against it. What I'm against -- and what I expect most Americans are against -- is spying on American citizens without warrants. I understand that sometimes there's not time to get a warrant. That's why the NSA would be able to produce a warrant up to 72 hours later. Why wouldn't they do that? That is the question. Your question is a strawman. Everybody supports spying on terrorists and the American citizens with whom they are in contact. Most Americans, however, oppose an executive office power grab that supercedes our system of checks and balances. Neither you nor the president nor anyone else has answered the question of why they couldn't get warrants.
What if the investigation is ongoing? Stealth is very important in cases like this. President Bush cited a case where the NY Times publicized that we were spying on Bin Laden. He then changed his methods of communication, thereby making us start over in trying to track him. Getting a warrant and serving that warrant blows our cover. The al Qaeda operatives will *change their behavior* when they know that they are under supervision. The more stealth, the better. That's the only way to get information.
First off, I'm almost sure that bin Laden story's been soundly debunked. Second, these aren't warrants that are served in person. They're issued by a secret court. The point of them is court oversight and checks and balances. Might be time for another funny picture.
isn't secrecy/stealth the whole point of the FISA court? you think the warrant will be give to the terrorists and inform them that they're being monitored?
A warrant is both a blow to the secrecy of the operation, a distraction, and something that would slow down our efforts in fighting terror. Period. Why else would the NSA be not pursuing them in these cases? Please answer that. If the NSA feels that issuing a warrant is a hindrance, then that is good enough for me. I'm not one of these people that believe that they are out to trample our civil rights. That's not anyone's goal. The goal is to fight terror. The problem with the radical left is that they deny their own government the benefit of the doubt in *every single* instance. It damages the left's credibility. Severely.
