• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it ok to wire tap phone calls from terrorists into this country?

Is it ok to wire tap phone calls from terrorists into this country?

  • No, it is a violation of their civil rights....

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • yes, it is important to know what terrorists are saying....

    Votes: 6 54.5%

  • Total voters
    11
Why am I not surprised that my Liberal and Liberaltarians have not responded?:roll:
 
Navy Pride, I am guessing that the question you asked fails to address whether these wiretaps have been obtained through a court order (or would be obtained through a court order within 72 hours). I think it violates our 4th Amendment rights when wiretapping is conducted without a court order. If a court order is obtained (or will be within the appropriate time frame), then I fully support the wiretapping.

How's that?
 
aps said:
Navy Pride, I am guessing that the question you asked fails to address whether these wiretaps have been obtained through a court order (or would be obtained through a court order within 72 hours). I think it violates our 4th Amendment rights when wiretapping is conducted without a court order. If a court order is obtained (or will be within the appropriate time frame), then I fully support the wiretapping.

How's that?

I am sorry I did not make that clear aps..............No warrent or court order required.......Just like under the Clinton administration did it in the case of Aldrich Ames (not sure of the spelling) spy case when he did illegal phone tapping and and illegal search on Mr. Ames house without a warrant.........Isn't it odd how Al Gore forgot that little fact in his speech yesterday?
 
Navy Pride said:
I am sorry I did not make that clear aps..............No warrent or court order required.......Just like under the Clinton administration did it in the case of Aldrich Ames (not sure of the spelling) spy case when he did illegal phone tapping and and illegal search on Mr. Ames house without a warrant.........Isn't it odd how Al Gore forgot that little fact in his speech yesterday?

Okay, then I just voted "no." If Clinton violated the rules, he should suffer any consequences (if any) that Bush does.
 
aps said:
Okay, then I just voted "no." If Clinton violated the rules, he should suffer any consequences (if any) that Bush does.

You must know that every president has used this authority in a time of war especially when your dealing with terrorists that want to kill us.we will just have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.........
 
Navy Pride said:
You must know that every president has used this authority in a time of war especially when your dealing with terrorists that want to kill us.we will just have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.........

Hey, if they want to wiretap with court orders all over the place, I support that wholeheartedly.
 
aps said:
Hey, if they want to wiretap with court orders all over the place, I support that wholeheartedly.

Hey if it prevents a terrorist attack on this country I say don't worry about the court order.........That is just me though..........
 
Navy Pride said:
Why am I not surprised that my Liberal and Liberaltarians have not responded?:roll:

I, a libertarian (not a "liberaltarian" but a conservative libertarian) voted yes. It's insane to think that no phone calls should be monitored, particularly in the post 9/11 world.

Now, if the poll had asked if it's ok to wire tap sans a warrant then my answer would be no. From what I understand, the FISA warrants (unlike standard search warrants) are dished out like penny candy and can even be obtained retroactively, 72 hours after the initial tap is placed IIRC.

I wouldn't be so annoyed about this whole incident were it not for Bush publicly stating numerous times the necessity to obtain court issued warrants in order to conduct wire tapping.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why am I not surprised that my Liberal and Liberaltarians have not responded?:roll:

Wow, you gave us a whole 36 minutes to respond before concluding we were too scared of your *cough* insightful question...

The issue here is how you know that they're terrorists (which, by the way, means that this poll is yet another of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety). A warrant for a wiretap can be obtained quickly with any reasonable suspicion, so if the executive can't get a warrant that means the suspicions are not reasonable. There's a reason that Congress passed a law demanding that the executive get a warrant. There's a reason that a judge is needed to give the warrant to the executive. It's part of the checks and balances of our government. To give the president the power to do this without a warrant is to give the president the power to ignore whatever laws he feels like ignoring in the name of fighting terror. What possible reason is there to always trust the president not to abuse this power?
 
Kandahar said:
Wow, you gave us a whole 36 minutes to respond before concluding we were too scared of your *cough* insightful question...

The issue here is how you know that they're terrorists (which, by the way, means that this poll is yet another of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety). A warrant for a wiretap can be obtained quickly with any reasonable suspicion, so if the executive can't get a warrant that means the suspicions are not reasonable. There's a reason that Congress passed a law demanding that the executive get a warrant. There's a reason that a judge is needed to give the warrant to the executive. It's part of the checks and balances of our government. To give the president the power to do this without a warrant is to give the president the power to ignore whatever laws he feels like ignoring in the name of fighting terror. What possible reason is there to always trust the president not to abuse this power?

I think the NSA knows if they are terrorists or not.........I guess I have to ask you where was your outrage when Clinton was doing it and we were not even at war?
 
Navy Pride said:
I think the NSA knows if they are terrorists or not.

Then that means they have a reason to believe that they're terrorists, which means that they can obtain a warrant easily.

Navy Pride said:
........I guess I have to ask you where was your outrage when Clinton was doing it and we were not even at war?

If I had known about it at the time I would've been angry. Why do you try to turn every topic of discussion into a debate about Clinton?
 
Navy Pride said:
I am sorry I did not make that clear aps..............No warrent or court order required.......Just like under the Clinton administration did it in the case of Aldrich Ames (not sure of the spelling) spy case when he did illegal phone tapping and and illegal search on Mr. Ames house without a warrant.........Isn't it odd how Al Gore forgot that little fact in his speech yesterday?

I'd like a little more info on Clinton and wiretapping, rather then just saying Clinton did it too, as a end run defense of Bush.

Ames was selling CIA secrets to the KGB since 1985...before Clinton was President.

The FISA amendment regarding home searches was not enacted until 1995, after Clinton 'supposedly' authorized a warrantless search of Ames' house. Therefore, Clinton did not ignore the existing law.

It's established that Clinton went to Congress asking for more strident wiretapping laws, and was shot down in his efforts.

Please prove to me that what Clinton did was illegal before using the republican mantra of deflecting attention away from Bush.
 
Kandahar said:
Then that means they have a reason to believe that they're terrorists, which means that they can obtain a warrant easily.



If I had known about it at the time I would've been angry. Why do you try to turn every topic of discussion into a debate about Clinton?

Because Clinton did the same thing...so did all presidents in time of war.even FDR..........Clinton did it in peacetime..........Where is your outrage against him?
 
Hoot said:
I'd like a little more info on Clinton and wiretapping, rather then just saying Clinton did it too, as a end run defense of Bush.

Ames was selling CIA secrets to the KGB since 1985...before Clinton was President.

The FISA amendment regarding home searches was not enacted until 1995, after Clinton 'supposedly' authorized a warrantless search of Ames' house. Therefore, Clinton did not ignore the existing law.

It's established that Clinton went to Congress asking for more strident wiretapping laws, and was shot down in his efforts.

Please prove to me that what Clinton did was illegal before using the republican mantra of deflecting attention away from Bush.

And he was and American citizen, and it was in peacetime.........
 
Kandahar said:
Then that means they have a reason to believe that they're terrorists, which means that they can obtain a warrant easily.


I agree with you Kandahar. This was my first thought after hearing the administrations response to allegations of wire tapping.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am sorry I did not make that clear aps..............No warrent or court order required.......Just like under the Clinton administration did it in the case of Aldrich Ames (not sure of the spelling) spy case when he did illegal phone tapping and and illegal search on Mr. Ames house without a warrant.........Isn't it odd how Al Gore forgot that little fact in his speech yesterday?

You are taking that out of context, are you not. That was with regards to "Physical" searches, which at the time, FISA had no provision for. After the fact, President Clinton supported and signed a physical search provision for FISA. Seems like you take your talking points directly from Rush and Sean
 
johns said:
You are taking that out of context, are you not. That was with regards to "Physical" searches, which at the time, FISA had no provision for. After the fact, President Clinton supported and signed a physical search provision for FISA. Seems like you take your talking points directly from Rush and Sean


You can spin it anyway you want, bottom line Clinton did the same thing Bush did and we were not even at war then....
 
Navy Pride said:
Your thoughts please

Of course it is OKAY to tap the phone calls from into this country...


however it becomes a diplomatic issue in terms of surveillance and telemetry to some extent as many forgein telcos and relative networks perhaps may not comply with our protocol and/or standard.

SO I see this question as... is It okay to tap the incoming communications from persons calling us outside of the US. Sure.

To imply that we could possibly wire every international call in such an interactive sense is Naive. If you are only referring to redflags and inter-communicado this question is pointless.
 
Navy Pride said:
You can spin it anyway you want, bottom line Clinton did the same thing Bush did and we were not even at war then....

Navy Pride is it just me or are you big on redundant comparisions and short on intellect? Of course, I realize you'll say it's just me... and that of course I just must be a flaming liberal Clinton apologist dare I disagree.

This is pathetic.
 
Hoot said:
I'd like a little more info on Clinton and wiretapping, rather then just saying Clinton did it too, as a end run defense of Bush.

Ames was selling CIA secrets to the KGB since 1985...before Clinton was President.

The FISA amendment regarding home searches was not enacted until 1995, after Clinton 'supposedly' authorized a warrantless search of Ames' house. Therefore, Clinton did not ignore the existing law.

It's established that Clinton went to Congress asking for more strident wiretapping laws, and was shot down in his efforts.

Please prove to me that what Clinton did was illegal before using the republican mantra of deflecting attention away from Bush.

have fun...
 
Here's an idea. Why don't you people stop saying "Clinton did it too" and actually provide some reasons why this kind of activity should be tolerated from any president.
 
Kandahar said:
Here's an idea. Why don't you people stop saying "Clinton did it too" and actually provide some reasons why this kind of activity should be tolerated from any president.

I think the point is that the Dems, howling about Bush, didnt say a thing about Clinton doing the exact same thing.

This leads the rational observer to conclude that their complaints are motivated not by actual concern for the constitutiuonally protected rights of the people, but by partisan politics.
 
Re: Is it OK to wire tap phone calls from terrorists into this country?

As worded, no qualms what-so-ever.
All Islamic terrorists must be hunted down using any and all methods without restraint.
To suggest otherwise is tantamount to treason..
 
Kandahar said:
Here's an idea. Why don't you people stop saying "Clinton did it too" and actually provide some reasons why this kind of activity should be tolerated from any president.

If that is for me, I say whatever it takes to make us safe and prevent another terrorist be it Clinton, Bush or whoever...........

We live in a different time then we have in any time in our history.......9/11/01 made it a whole new ballgame.........As soon as some of you on the left realize that the better it will be........
 
Back
Top Bottom