qtiger

...

98CoupeV6

Benjamin Franklin didn't know about car bombs and terrorists. He was referring to essential rights like habeas corpus, not housing troops at home, fair trials, etc.

I would not define wiretapping which affects NONE of us in here as "essential liberty". If you do, you're either on the phone with al-Qaeda or you're nuts.

qtiger

Whether or not this wiretapping program applies to me means nothing. This wiretapping program, beyond being of questionable legality, is far beyond the President's authority to authorize and completely lacks oversight. I couldn't give two shits about who, what, etc, the government wiretaps. But if you want to wiretap people there needs to be a process, some oversight, legislated by Congress, and within the bounds of the law.


Let's not pretend like this is an isolated case of a liberal judge. How many times have the President's policies been smacked down by the courts like the hand of a child reaching for the candy dish? Offhand there's Guantanamo the first and second times, the PATRIOT act once, then the military tribunals...

Has the administration WON a case on any of its policies yet?

98CoupeV6

Well name one essential liberty you've lost or stop throwing that damn quote around.

MellowGold

Do you not understand anything about what makes our country so great? I highly suggest you discover why democracy works and what is needed for it to be effective. Then we will all be free of your sophomoric attempts at wit.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



Bush is on a very fine line. People are simply worried he will overstep his bounderies. It is a legitimate worry, one that deserves discussion and debate.

Duff Man

As far as wire tapping goes, get a court order. In the history of 4000 wire tapping situations, only 2 have been denied.

And we all know good and well that it was probably some ass that wanted to spy on his cheating wife

98CoupeV6

How much of a dumbass are you? NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOUR CONVERSATIONS UNLESS YOU'RE CALLING OVERSEAS TO KNOWN TERRORISTS. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS?

qtiger

The right to be represented in this country's actions and policies by my elected Representative and Senators?

MellowGold

And there needs to be oversite on this. In addition, these wire taps are done without warrents. Did you read the ammendment?

"...but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If there is clear evidence that the other party is a terrorist organization, there would be absolutely no problem receiving a warrant. That is all people are asking. If they would use the proper process, people would not have a problem.

DVPGSR

Congratulations you can quote Ben Franklin. Like noone else has ever used that before. Franklin never had to face the fanaticism of Muslim extremists hell bent on killing themselves and taking as many people as possible with them.

This wiretapping is a lot less intrusive and affects a rare few people residing in the US. First it only is for calls that originate or end within a foreign, that is picked up by NSA listening stations OUTSIDE the US. Second, it is for calls to or from KNOWN terrorist phone numbers. So all those numbers in Khalid Sheik Mohammeds cell phone are being watched. Sorry but if you are calling a number that was in his cell phone I want my government to know about it. Unless your calls fit these two criteria you HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!