POLL: Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance...?

Capital News ^ | 12/19/2005 | wildbill

[demkicker]

Same percentage when I voted. I did note, however, that mine was the 4,341st vote.

[linda_22003]

The test of that statement is whether it would be "enough for you" if a president you DIDN'T like said it.

[griswold3]

August 12. 1988
Echelon-
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/echelon.html

[BJClinton]

Poll Of The Day

Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance without court order?

Yes

	48%

No

	52%

Total Votes: 4484

[AmericaUnite]

Voted. Can I do it again?

[right wing]

When I voted it was still
Yes: 48%
No: 52%

My vote was the 4,484th

[Your Nightmare]

It is not as if he has taken it upon himself to spy on anybody he chooses,

Yes it is. He's just chosen not to spy on anyone except for those having international communications with "known" terror suspects. But without providing probable cause to a judicial oversight entity, who's to say the next guy won't chose to spy on someone else? The next guy might consider FR a terrorist organization and spy on us.

Frankly I'm shocked that FReepers would be so accepting of this just because a Republican is in office.

[presently no screen name]

BTTT

[lugsoul]

Actually, on FR the official test of that statement is whether it would be 'enough for you' if Hillary said it.

Of course it wouldn't. And the sheep who are laying down for the weak-ass explanation of a blatant violation of Constitutional law don't have the slightest concept that if you allow THIS President to decide which rules apply and which don't, you allow EVERY President to do so.

[lugsoul]

"The 4th amendment only applies to US citizens in good standing."

That is a completely, utterly false statement, and you couldn't back it up if you tried.

What is this 'in good standing' crap? Where does it come from? Who decides? Is there a list?

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, and you really should pause before you run around spreading disinformation like this.

[linda_22003]

You have it exactly right. And I must say, "if Hillary said it" is really the acid test! :)

[BikerNYC]

The 4th amendment only applies to US citizens in good standing.

I believe the Fourth refers to "people," not citizens.

Once you conspire with the enemy, that right disappears.

The Fourth doesn't say that.

"persons, houses, papers, and effects" probably doesn't apply to email and cellphone conversations anyway.

It does. See BERGER v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 41 (1967). The government gets wiretap warrants all the time.

The fact that the government does not plan to introduce any evidence it obtains as a result of any warrantless eavesdropping it might do does not change the illegality of the process.

[HairOfTheDog]

Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance without court order?

Yes

	48%

No

	52%

Total Votes: 5071

[Eagles Talon IV]

Please, ALL the targets are known to be either terrorists or associated with terrorists or terrorist organizations in some form. This is why their are constant re evaluations and oversight by Congress. It is not and has not been done in secret as is plainly evident now. This surveillance is done under the provisions of the Patriot Act and the Congress can repeal them if they choose.

Using the excuse that the next president may abuse a law as an excuse to do away with the law is foolishness carried to the extreme.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"Once you conspire with the enemy, that right disappears.

The Fourth doesn't say that."

So you actually believe the privacy rights of anyone in this nation, citizen or not, supersede the safety and security of the rest of us?

Perhaps a bit of common sense is in order here.

[BikerNYC]

Unless there is probable cause to believe that someone has done something wrong, I don't know how you say that the security of anyone is threatened by that individual. If there is probable cause, then the government can get a warrant.

[Realism]

So you actually believe the privacy rights of anyone in this nation, citizen or not, supersede the safety and security of the rest of us?

I'm sure someone could come up with allot of provisions and programs to make you feel more safe and secure, especially if it was only their imagination that was holding them back.

[GunnyHartman]

Do you agree with President Bush's decision allowing domestic surveillance without court order?

Yes 46%

No 54%

Total Votes: 5814

[Steel Wolf]

The fact that the government does not plan to introduce any evidence it obtains as a result of any warrantless eavesdropping it might do does not change the illegality of the process.

Sure it does. You're just looking at it the wrong way. (Assuming that I'm understanding what the President explained in his speech today)

For any domestic terrorist, the FBI is going to want his number tapped, and will submit a warrant through the FISA court to get it. But before it ever gets to that point, they need to be tipped off that there's a number that they want.

Intelligence gathered through an emergency provision may not be admissible in court, but they don't have to be. It's only for immediate, time sensitive 'force protection' of the nation. (You can say that a FISA court order only takes a few hours, but that's only one of many steps in the intelligence collection process, and doesn't count the ammount of time it takes to put together the request in the first place)

Once it's determined that the threat isn't immediate, then at least the FBI has some time to submit a warrant without having to worry that bombs are being set in the mean time. They can monitor and build the case at leisure, and with a court order to back it up.

[BikerNYC]

Intelligence gathered through an emergency provision may not be admissible in court, but they don't have to be.

Unless the evidence was unconstitutionally (illegally) obtained, then why, as long as the evidence was otherwise relevant like any evidence has to be, would there be any problem with admitting it in court?