Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 20 of 125 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://texasrainmaker.blogspot.com/2005/12/americans-favor-nsa-program-according.html

Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Americans Favor the NSA Program

According to Rasmussen. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

Sixty-four percent (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.

I'm not big on polls, but I know many on the Left rely on them heavily to decide how they will think about an issue today. This one might leave a mark. Even when they break down the results by party affiliation, a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike "believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States".

Welcome to the real mainstream.
 

·
FJ80 Expedition Rig
Joined
·
1,460 Posts
wow, i would not have thought in a million years that 64% of the population would agree with this. Kinda interested to hear jah's opinion of all this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
To me, it's not an issue of whether they should be allowed to listen, but whether they should have to answer to another branch of the gub'nit. That's why we have checks and balances (in theory) everyone has to answer to someone.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
As usual, its all in the wording. The question should have been as follows.

Question Asked In Poll:

"Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?"

The Real Question:

"Should the President be allowed to give the National Security Agency authority to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States without the courts approval, in direct violation of the law?"

Because quite simply, I would have answered yes to the first question as well. However, I would NOT have answered yes to the second question, which is the one that pertains to what has happened.

Simple.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
So much for this "making us safer" too.

From the Center for American Progress

At today’s press briefing, White House spokesman Trent Duffy was asked about a story in today’s New York Times, which reported that Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program could undermine key terrorism prosecutions:

Q The New York Times reports today that there are several legal challenges based on the NSA wiretaps. Are you concerned that these challenges could jeopardize the cases against people you guys have already described as very bad people?

MR. DUFFY: …[W]e decline to comment on any pending cases, but I don’t think it should serve as any surprise that defense attorneys are looking at ways to represent their clients; that’s what defense attorneys do.​

Duffy’s right, criminal defense lawyers are looking for ways that their clients can avoid conviction. And Bush’s actions have given them an easy way to do it. The program violated federal criminal law — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As a result, any information collected by the program is inadmissible in court. (This principle is called the exclusionary rule.) If that information is critical to the government’s case, a guilty terrorist might be found not guilty.

What’s worse, if what the administration says is true, none of this was necessary. If all of the surveillance targeted people associated with al Qaeda, as the administration claims, it would have been easily approved by the FISA court. That process would not have delayed the surveillance since a warrant can be obtained up to 72 hours after the surveillance starts.

The Bush administration says the program is justified because it made us safer. The opposite appears to be true. The program has made us less safe by needlessly complicating the prosecution of terrorist suspects.
 

·
crank trigger
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
Potamus said:
To me, it's not an issue of whether they should be allowed to listen, but whether they should have to answer to another branch of the gub'nit. That's why we have checks and balances (in theory) everyone has to answer to someone.
potamus has it summed up quite succinctly here, there must be accountability. Our entire govt is based on checks and balances to protect us. edit: is it worth gathering info illegally if we can't use it to prosecute?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Here's my honest feeling on this--take it as you want.

I feel that they can listen to anyone they feel they have a need to, as long as it's used to protect Americans lives. Lives are more important to me then privacy rights. I could give a crap if this violates the rights of terrorists, or their families/friends that live here in the US. I don't care if the calls are US to US calls either. I don't believe that the NSA or other secret organizations(they're out there) are listening to me ordering pizza, nor to my dad in Kansas, nor to any left wing groupies. I really don't care if they do, as I have nothing to hide. Hell, I willingly let them do FULL background checks on me on a regular basis. I know that the USAF regularly monitors my e-mail and overseas telephone conversations--again I don't care, as I have nothing to hide. Checks and balances be damned, I just want to know that I can ride the subway with my children and feel comfortable knowing that there is little chance of watching them die in a bomb blast, or gas attack. Has this program kept us more safe--Who knows that isn't on the inside of this program? I just know that there hasn't been anymore attacks to hit US soil since Sept 11, 2001, but there sure has been a LOT of attacks in other countries, with some other countries suffering multiple attacks. Just my take on it, do with it as you will.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
Power corrupts. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. Btw, I find the whole "there hasn't been another attack on US soil" argument so repetitive and weak... when was the last terrorist attack on US soil BEFORE 9/11? What about before that? Funny how these other presidents kept us "safe" from terrorism without walking all over the Constitution? And heres the fact of the matter... we will NEVER be "safe from terrorism". Period. Checks and balances be damned? You should really think about that, and think about WHY this country exists, WHY our forefathers fought and died for these checks and balances.
 

·
crank trigger
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
Blue'87GT said:
Here's my honest feeling on this--take it as you want.

I feel that they can listen to anyone they feel they have a need to, as long as it's used to protect Americans lives. Lives are more important to me then privacy rights. I could give a crap if this violates the rights of terrorists, or their families/friends that live here in the US. I don't care if the calls are US to US calls either. I don't believe that the NSA or other secret organizations(they're out there) are listening to me ordering pizza, nor to my dad in Kansas, nor to any left wing groupies. I really don't care if they do, as I have nothing to hide. Hell, I willingly let them do FULL background checks on me on a regular basis. I know that the USAF regularly monitors my e-mail and overseas telephone conversations--again I don't care, as I have nothing to hide. Checks and balances be damned, I just want to know that I can ride the subway with my children and feel comfortable knowing that there is little chance of watching them die in a bomb blast, or gas attack. Has this program kept us more safe--Who knows that isn't on the inside of this program? I just know that there hasn't been anymore attacks to hit US soil since Sept 11, 2001, but there sure has been a LOT of attacks in other countries, with some other countries suffering multiple attacks. Just my take on it, do with it as you will.


Live free or die!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
Blue'87GT said:
Lives are more important to me then privacy rights. I could give a crap if this violates the rights of terrorists, or their families/friends that live here in the US. I don't care if the calls are US to US calls either.
Go back to Brittain, you tea-sipping, crown-loyalist.:goodfinge

Like it or not, this country was founded by people who felt the exact opposite. This nation, as a consequence is founded on said priciple. This is why there is an amendment in the bill of rights that states a necessity for warrants before search and seisure, and yes, alot of people gave up their own lives because they felt that those rights for the people were more important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
I would also like to point out that since this protection is found in the bill of rights, the only thing that can make it legal is a new constitutional amendment added afterwards, not the patriot act.



And I could have sworn it was the right wing that used to be worried about "big brother".
 

·
crank trigger
Joined
·
8,159 Posts
Potamus said:
I would also like to point out that since this protection is found in the bill of rights, the only thing that can make it legal is a new constitutional amendment added afterwards, not the patriot act.



And I could have sworn it was the right wing that used to be worried about "big brother".
they also used to be against big govt, but those days are loooong gone.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
ScorpionBoy said:
they also used to be against big govt, but those days are loooong gone.
yeah, that went out the window with fiscal responsibility / restraint and federalism. :doh0715:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
JahWarrior said:
Power corrupts. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. Btw, I find the whole "there hasn't been another attack on US soil" argument so repetitive and weak... when was the last terrorist attack on US soil BEFORE 9/11? What about before that? Funny how these other presidents kept us "safe" from terrorism without walking all over the Constitution? And heres the fact of the matter... we will NEVER be "safe from terrorism". Period. Checks and balances be damned? You should really think about that, and think about WHY this country exists, WHY our forefathers fought and died for these checks and balances.
Terrorist attacks on US property and soil prior to 9/11/2001 BTW, these are just since the 1980's.

USS Cole-2000 bombing kills 17 US sailors.

Attempted bombing of USS Sullivan-2000 Fails due to small craft sinking from being overloaded with explosives.

December 14, 1999: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots

August 7, 1999: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

June 25, 1996: Khobar Towers bombing. On June 25, 1996, terrorists, identified by the United States as members of Hezbollah, exploded a fuel truck adjacent to Building #131 in the housing complex. This eight-story building mostly housed United States Air Force personnel from the 4404th Fighter Wing. In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded. This event has come to be known as the Khobar Towers bombing.

April 19, 1995: Oklahoma City bombing kills 168 people, 19 of them children; the worst act of domestic terrorism in the United States.

February 26, 1993: World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people. A car bomb was planted by Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One.

December 21, 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie. The worst act of terrorism against the United States prior to September 11, 2001, and among the worst acts of terrorism in European history.

October 23, 1983: Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut kills 241 U.S. Marines. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack.

April 18, 1983: U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63.

Many more right here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack

Nah, there wasn't any attacks against us before 9-11-01 was there? That line is "so repetitive and weak" right? I'd love to hear how this one will be twisted around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Potamus said:
I would also like to point out that since this protection is found in the bill of rights, the only thing that can make it legal is a new constitutional amendment added afterwards, not the patriot act.
I understand that, but tell congress and the senate that would you? I think that both sides agreed on the patriot act at the beginning, and STILL think that it's important even today, as evidenced by their votes to keep it around. I'm not a law maker, I'm just concerned about the safety of my country and its citizens all around the world.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
Blue'87GT said:
I understand that, but tell congress and the senate that would you? I think that both sides agreed on the patriot act at the beginning, and STILL think that it's important even today, as evidenced by their votes to keep it around. I'm not a law maker, I'm just concerned about the safety of my country and its citizens all around the world.
The Patriot Act didn't even give the President the authority to spy on Americans without a court warrant. The Patriot Act is one of the most un-"Patriotic" laws ever passed in this country... but still didn't grant the President unchecked powers to run amock.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
Blue'87GT said:
I am living free right now--aren't you???
Apparently I am not living free from the ability of the gov't to wiretap me without a warrant issued by a US court who felt that there was credible evidence to warrant such action. And frankly, it doesn't really matter if you "care" or not. It is a violation of the laws of this country, and the President is NOT above the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
JahWarrior said:
Apparently I am not living free from the ability of the gov't to wiretap me without a warrant issued by a US court who felt that there was credible evidence to warrant such action. And frankly, it doesn't really matter if you "care" or not. It is a violation of the laws of this country, and the President is NOT above the law.
You must be lioving if you are able to type this note. Freedom is all by a person's perspective. We're chatting on the internet right now, expressing our personal opinions about the state of our government free from oppression--sounds free to me. Excuse my directness, but frankly, it DOES matter what I think, as I'm the onyl one effected by my opinion. I'm sure we'll all see and hear more about his topic through the next couple of months, but what is being said right now is that Pres Bush not violating the laws by doing conducting this operation. Members of both sides were updated as to what was happening, as the program was going on.

BTW, this quote I found speaks perfectly to what I believe-

"If there had been another attack, Bush's critics would be asking why he didn't use every means at his disposal to stop an attack. There hasn't been, which can only be interpreted as his approach to terrorism being successful. So, he's criticized for being too aggressive. I'd like to hear Bush's critics identify which innocent civilians should have been sacrificed, so that nobody has to worry about telephone calls to Tehran being overheard."
 
1 - 20 of 125 Posts
Top