NSA Wiretappings

[Eric]

I saw some e-mail responses in the Detroit Free Press's editorial section about the NSA Wiretappings. There was a big hubbub about this several months ago, and some Dems on capitol hill want the president to be impeached over such a thing.

So, is it "domestic spying" or "terrorist surveillance"?

[Spence]

Legally it is probably both. On one hand you want to know what the terrorists are up to, on the other I don't really want people listening in on my private calls. What you have to consider would be, does your right to privacy mean more to you then knowing what the terrorists are doing.

On the surface that seems like an easy question, but once you give up a right (protected under the constitution), you probably aren'y going to get it back.

We allowed police to seize property under the umbrella of punishing drug pushers. Police have used that same law to seize property from people who they "suspect" got it illegally. Getting the property back is nearly impossible even if you are proven not guilty. Our rights were given to use for a reason, I wouldn't be so quick to give any of them up.

[Eric]

Right, but the difference isn't that it's random; suspected al-Qaeda members are being listened to.

However, I also understand if you give the government an inch, they'll make it a mile

[Eric]

The other thing is that it's extremely important that we know what these guys are up to; I don't think that Bush is some diabolical mastermind criminal hellbent on destroying our liberties and trampling over the constitution; although some do

[Spence]

The other thing is that it's extremely important that we know what these guys are up to; I don't think that Bush is some diabolical mastermind criminal hellbent on destroying our liberties and trampling over the constitution; although some do

I don't think so either, but I am sure the people who made the other law had good intentions also. We do need to know what they are doing, but we must not give up our freedoms to find out. Some things are worth dying for.

[mountainman]

Some things are worth dying for.

And some things are worth killing for.

Is the terrorist threat real? Based on what I've seen, I believe that it is.

Do the terrorist intend to do our nation harm? Based on what I've seen, I believe they do.

Do the terrorist have the will carry out their intentions? Based on what I've seen, I believe they do.

Do the terrorist have the means to carry out their intentions? Based on what I've seen, I believe they do.

Do the terrorist have the opportunity to carry out their intentions? Based on what I've seen, I believe they do.

To my way of thinking, our laws were enacted in the spirit of protecting us from those who may wish to do us harm. Telephones, cell phones, etc. are certainly convenient and provide us with a wonderful way to communicate with one another, but they are also being used by those who wish to do us harm. For those who may be concerned about having to give up the convenience of electronic communication during these troubled times due to their concerns about 'who may be listening in' could simply choose not to use communication methods that are being subjected to 'wiretapping' during these troubled times in order to help with the effort to prevent terrorist acts.

I doubt that will happen and I'll bet you all of my CFP Bucks at 100 to 1 odds that the ones who are taking issue with the governments actions to thwart terrorist acts will be the first ones to say, "The current administration (whoever that may be) did not do everything they could to protect us and prevent this terrible thing from happening."

[Spence]

You are right. If we take a hit they will say "you should have..(fill in the blank).

I don't mind the wireless listening. It is the hardwired listening and the randomness of which it is being done. If this were the only reason it could be done or would be done, then I would say good idea. The problem lies in the fact that once you give up your freedom in the name of "keeping us safe" I feel you are really less safe.

It is like the gun debate. Give up your right to keep arms and everyone will be safer. I don't believe it. I'm keeping mine.

I think we should do what can be done to capture or kill the terrorists. To kill the beast you have to cut of the head. The head is Iran IMO. Until we do something about them, it won't get any better.

[Eric]

I haven't heard any proof that it is random. I believe that's an assumption; all we have to go on right now is the President's word; be it reliable or not.

I think stuff like this should be like the search and seizure laws; if there is probable cause, take a listening to it. I don't think that Auntie Martha's conversations are being listened to. It's listening to Al-Habarzejah's conversation with a Pakistani about learning how ignite bombs with cell phones.

[Eric]

It is like the gun debate. Give up your right to keep arms and everyone will be safer. I don't believe it. I'm keeping mine.

Oh yeah. It's the most stupid argument ever. #1 the good, law-abiding citizens would surrender their guns (well, some). #2 the bad, law-ignoring thugs would keep their guns. #3 it would be like drugs; even though they're illegal, the law-breakers still find a way to get them. It's common sense!

[Eric]

That's the thing, rolltide. The government isn't listening to our phone conversations! They monitor suspected al-Qaeda members and trace their calls to countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The founding fathers wouldn't complain about "encroachment of their rights" by wiretapping; it would be viewed as common sense to key in and listen to the enemy.

I wouldn't have a problem if they obtained court orders either; even though I don't think they should have them because they have every right to keep our country secure, it would've been the best way so the Dems didn't have any ammunition on this common sensical topic.

[..fanatic]

I am not for giving up any rights. Period.

Refuse steadfastly to "give up any rights" now and wait til you see what you'll be surrendering later.

Monitoring known, or suspected, terrorist communications is not forcing us to give up any rights. All efforts should be targeted at the people causing the problems.

Liberals argue that we shouldn't "profile" to catch the enemy. But they don't want us doing it randomly as it invades our rights to privacy. Sounds obvious they don't really want us doing anything.

[Eric]

My question is this: What has been released to make people think that the federal government is listening to random phone calls and not al-Qaeda's members?

Liberals argue that we shouldn't "profile" to catch the enemy. But they don't want us doing it randomly as it invades our rights to privacy. Sounds obvious they don't really want us doing anything.

We should do random screening and we should profile. You just saw one of the people involved with the latest plot was a white guy who was converted. But this is liberals excuse not to profile; which makes sense to me to an extent, just use more effort on the group that most terrorists come from.

[Spence]

I don't have a problem with profiling. When looking for criminals I don't want them stopping little old ladys. I want them stopping people who look like the criminals. If police were looking for a criminal and I fit that description, I would be happy to answer their questions. Also glad that they were looking.

I don't have a problem with wiretapping suspected terrorists. I just think they should have a reason for doing it. I am sure they don't tap every person that appears Arab or Muslim. As long as they set up protocol and follow it, I have no problems. There should be a system of checks and balences in place.

[..fanatic]

Reasonable people can argue for eternity what measures do and don't violate our rights. We don't have eternity to figure out what's "proper" for everyone to agree with.

At this point, I don't see evidence that rights are being violated. The NSA wiretaps are targeting suspects believed to have terrorist links. Every measure should be taken to intercept terrorist communications, financial transactions, etc.

But in the end, I want all reasonable measures taken to reduce or eliminate the threat in the quickest possible time frame. I don't want my kids to have to take care of this mess, or pay the price for it, just because my generation didn't have the guts to do it thoroughly.

[mountainman]

I don't want my kids to have to take care of this mess, or pay the price for it.

Here, here ..... fanatic.