Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[ZendoBro]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

You make it sound like it's such a hard and tedious process to obtain a warrant. There are already laws in place that don't require a warrant in times of exigency. Not to mention all the government needs to perform a legal search and seizure is objective reasoning. Don't get me wrong. I'm all about national security but we are the ones that give the government power.

[thesightless]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

do you really want to waste time when a group[ of people are planning to bomb a train station

[ZendoBro]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

If someone is in imminent danger then that's consider exigency.

[neoee]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

do you really want to waste time when a group[ of people are planning to bomb a train station

How is it a waste of time when they can get the warrant by FISA up to 72 hours AFTER the surevillence?

[neoee]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I'll go along with giving the government more authority to possibly prevent future terrorist attacks. By that I mean making the Patriot Act permanent and leaving the discretion up to the NSA to decide which communications they should monitor.

In reality, people who aren't committing crimes don't have anything to fear. Also, the NSA has admitted they don't have the resources to listen to everyone's phone calls anyway. They're only going to focus on possible threats. They're only supposed to listen to international calls, but I think they should concentrate on domestic too since its believed there are terror cells already in the U.S.

One of the provisions of the Patriot Act is that government agencies can communicate and share information better. Had this act been in place before 9/11 then possibly the agencies could have shared information better to prevent 9/11. I don't think either side wants to see the Patriot act eliminated, but some honest non-partisan discussion of a permanent act needs to happen.

A couple points,

1st, why do we need a Patriot Act if the government isn't going to follow its own rules? It really makes no sense. If G-dubbua and crew are above the law, as seen with the recent wire tap headlines, why bother to put silly documents out there making it looks as if there are process and procedures to follow?

2nd, I find you line of thinking dangerous to our freedoms. As Zendo already pointed out, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, this was one of the primary foundations of this country. The same reason many leave other countries to make this one their home.

If you believe the Bush administrations definition of fast food as "manufacturing" jobs, you can start speculating what "international" and "terrorist" means.

For instance if you place a domestic long-distance phone call, it could go over a satellite link. Well, orbit is international territory. Therefore using Bush administration verbal gymnastics, this would be an international call. And what about cell phones??? Well, all those signals go into orbit, so that could be an "international" :cough: call as well.

What about terrorists??? Well we already know that the Bush administration considers unions (the NEA in particular), peace activists and environmental activists as "terrorists". And many Democrats subscribe to ideas of unionism, peace and environmentalism. Ergo, Democrats are terrorists.

And what about any businesses that do businesses in country where there may be terrorists? Couldn't they be terrorists as well. Well I'm sure there is a lot of strategic business information that could be learned from "international" calls by "terrorists".

The President is NOT an elected king. The Presidents job is to respect and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The President cannot just "make up" laws.

[superdave]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I agree in people's right to privacy, but when the situation arises the government must act quickly and privately. Too much information has leaked to left wing media outlets like the New York Times and Newsweek. I think the Patriot Act should be revised to allow the NSA or other government agencies to act and use whatever they need to protect national securtiy. At some point though, I agree there should be some oversight of the NSA to make sure they don't abuse this power.

The President and the NSA don't want to listen to you and your significant other talk to each other on the phone. They're using their limited resources to try and prevent another terrorist attack. I don't see how you could be against your government protecting you from 9/11 happening all over again. And if it does, the President will be the first to blame by everyone especially Democrats.

[delirious]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I agree in people's right to privacy, but when the situation arises the government must act quickly and privately. Too much information has leaked to left wing media outlets like the New York Times and Newsweek. I think the Patriot Act should be revised to allow the NSA or other government agencies to act and use whatever they need to protect national securtiy. At some point though, I agree there should be some oversight of the NSA to make sure they don't abuse this power.

The President and the NSA don't want to listen to you and your significant other talk to each other on the phone. They're using their limited resources to try and prevent another terrorist attack. I don't see how you could be against your government protecting you from 9/11 happening all over again. And if it does, the President will be the first to blame by everyone especially Democrats.

The president already has these powers under the existing FISA rules. Tapping can be done instantaneously, for up to 72 hours, before a court order is granted.

[thesightless]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

again, i hope the loopholes lead to your contingent's families being killed rather than mine like what happened in 2001. i would let the gov't do whatever the fuck they wanted if i could have my godfather and friends back.

[delirious]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

they arent tappig thephones of the local 18 year kid dealing weed. they are going after the mid 20's to mid 30's middle eastern person who is seen in a mosque with a rather inflamatory leader.

Any proof ? Thought so.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." - President Bush April 2004

Your president is a liar, sir.

[Yao]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

with a minimum of profiling this should require no proof. On the other hand the searches may be expanded to more people, when that is necessary...

[ZendoBro]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

again, i hope the loopholes lead to your contingent's families being killed rather than mine like what happened in 2001. i would let the gov't do whatever the fuck they wanted if i could have my godfather and friends back.

And has the gov't caught the person/s responsible for 9/11 with the Patriot Act etc.? Oh yeah! Oil was more important.

[Yao]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

lol, yea it seems people seem to lose the real goals out of sight. The attitude of: give them the power as long as I don't get bombed, is one of irrational fear IMO. Out here the govt is doing much less, but you don't see me shitting bricks here over getting bombed. Yes, it might happen, but I do not want the govt to penetrate my personal life in the forst place: apart from that I don't think that is THE way to get those people, simply because they might work in code, meet in person or have other means to avoid their convo's being overheard over the phone. It would be faitly amateurish if they'd let that happen in the first place IMO.

I really don't understand why all this is concentrating on phonetaps in the fist place: they might be a weapon in the arsenal of the NSA, but I doubt it's THE weapon....

I will do a search on something my dad just told me, which might shed some light on a few things..not going to tell what it is yet without finding any proof so far. To be continued.

[superdave]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

The president already has these powers under the existing FISA rules. Tapping can be done instantaneously, for up to 72 hours, before a court order is granted.

The President wants FISA to be used in all cases except when the government needs to move quickly to stop terrorist attacks. The President is putting power and discretion to the people doing the job and not letting bureacratic red tape cause another 9/11 to happen.

There also is a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2001 that lets the US government detain possible terrorist suspects. From that ruling, the thinking is that the governement can perform surveillance on those suspects without warrants. I personally think its a stretch and like to see this thinking debated. However, I agree with getting a permanent Patriot Act in place to clarify things.

[delirious]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

The President wants FISA to be used in all cases except when the government needs to move quickly to stop terrorist attacks.
.

So are we to believe that 18,000 people have been monitored without FISA [White house has not denied this figure] because the government was acting quickly to stop terrorist attacks?

The President is putting power and discretion to the people doing the job and not letting bureacratic red tape cause another 9/11 to happen.

Terrorists can already be monitored -without a court order- under the current laws. The relevant officials already have the power to monitor anyone, immediately, at their discetion.

That argument doesn't wash. Even Bush says that FISA doesn't hinder law enforcement in these kinds of cases...

Nice try - no cigar

[toasty]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

The President wants FISA to be used in all cases except when the government needs to move quickly to stop terrorist attacks. The President is putting power and discretion to the people doing the job and not letting bureacratic red tape cause another 9/11 to happen.

Please explain how a law that permits you to wiretap a phone when an exigency exists and get a warrant after the fact encumbers the government from "moving quickly." As far as I can tell, the only difference is whether or not it is ever necessary to get a warrant at all, which would occur after the need to "move quickly" exists. Under FISA and Bush's warrantless searches, the government can spring into action and do what it needs to do to get whatever surveillance it deems necessary.

It's all about checks and balances. The warrant requirement, even after the fact, is a check on the executive branch's police power. If you think that checks and balances are a bad idea, well, I'm not sure you understand what America is all about. Even if the warrants are pretty much granted as a matter of course, the act of having to go and present it to a court is an act of independent significance that has value in checking the executive branch.