• 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.

Warrantless Wiretapping (1 Viewer)

Should the government be allowed to wiretap American citizens without a court order?

  • Yes, this is an important national security tool.

    Votes: 14 26.9%
  • No, the government needs to obtain a warrant first.

    Votes: 38 73.1%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    52

Lefty

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
Philadelphia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Do you support the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program?

I do not. I don't think the president is above the law, and cannot decide when it is convenient for him to obey it. The president, like all citizens of this nation is bound to the law and the constitution. He cannot use national security as an excuse to curb civil liberties and spy on American citizens without a court order. Our government has a system of checks and balances, and our president bypassed the secret court that was put in place to keep our government from abusing it's power. The president has no right, and no legal basis for his actions.
 
Even if it is guaranteed that the government only use its intelligence-gathering capabilities on known or suspected terrorists (which is certainly not the case), the idea of there being no paper trail for what is going on is unsettling. Even if it is kept secret from the general populace, I believe that there needs to be some sort of accountability and record of what the government is actually doing.
 
Engimo said:
Even if it is guaranteed that the government only use its intelligence-gathering capabilities on known or suspected terrorists (which is certainly not the case), the idea of there being no paper trail for what is going on is unsettling. Even if it is kept secret from the general populace, I believe that there needs to be some sort of accountability and record of what the government is actually doing.

Agreed. Even obtaining the warrants after the wiretaps are in place, which they have 72 hours to do, is better than not obtaining a warrant at all.
 
Stace said:
Agreed. Even obtaining the warrants after the wiretaps are in place, which they have 72 hours to do, is better than not obtaining a warrant at all.

Stace, I even heard that they can get the warrant up to 10 days later, but I need to verify that fact.

I, of course, voted no because I am a useful idiot. :lol:
 
Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
*sigh* it seems the useful idiots are abundant these days.
Why do you advocate breaking the law over a lame chicken little rap?
 
Originally posted by aps:
I, of course, voted no because I am a useful idiot.
Idiots do have their uses. I, of coarse, am a useless idiot. I still voted no anyway.
 
Billo_Really said:
Why do you advocate breaking the law over a lame chicken little rap?


Wait a minute now who broke the law???
Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Posted by: clarice | December 23, 2005 at 10:30 PM

Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists

September 14, 2001

This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Oh ya the NYT's, that's what I thought.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Wait a minute now who broke the law???
This was not written for protection of officials when they break the law. Furthermore, I provided one of the Senators (and the link) that voted for that Joint Resolution, and he said wiretapping on US soil on Americans was not part of that resolution. He was there, he was part of the process, you were not. Yet you want me to believe you over him. Get real, TOT.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:

Wait a minute now who broke the law???




Oh ya the NYT's, that's what I thought.

This thread is not about discussion of the NYT or who broke the law, it is about whether or not we should allow the government to perform wiretaps without warrants. Don't change the subject.
 
Billo_Really said:
Furthermore, I provided one of the Senators (and the link) that voted for that Joint Resolution, and he said wiretapping on US soil on Americans was not part of that resolution. He was there, he was part of the process, you were not. Yet you want me to believe you over him. Get real, TOT.

So, what does "all necessary...force" mean?
And, who decides what's "necessary"?
 
M14 Shooter said:
So, what does "all necessary...force" mean?
And, who decides what's "necessary"?

M14, based upon what I have read, "force" is usually related to military force.
 
Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
So, what does "all necessary...force" mean?
And, who decides what's "necessary"?
According to the Senator that voted for the resolution and took part in the debates, "all necessary...force" meant anywhere but in the continental United States. Bush, at the last minute, tried to introduce language into the Resolution that would allow this, but he was shot down by members of Congress and the verbage didn't make it.

Furthermore, the Senator said that no member of Congress voted on the Resolution with the knowledge of it being used on American soil against American citizens.
 
Engimo said:
Even if it is guaranteed that the government only use its intelligence-gathering capabilities on known or suspected terrorists (which is certainly not the case), the idea of there being no paper trail for what is going on is unsettling. Even if it is kept secret from the general populace, I believe that there needs to be some sort of accountability and record of what the government is actually doing.

What do you mean 'which is certainly not the case?'

Hasn't the AG already come out and make a statement that these were international calls being made by suspected terrorists who were either making calls into or outside the US?
 
SixStringHero said:
What do you mean 'which is certainly not the case?'

Hasn't the AG already come out and make a statement that these were international calls being made by suspected terrorists who were either making calls into or outside the US?

I mean that there is no guarantee of it. I am aware that there has likely been no spying on honest American citizens, there is no absolute guarantee that it cannot happen. Chances are that I'll never get wiretapped, but I don't like the idea of there being no paper trail - regardless of who is being watched.
 
Billo_Really said:
According to the Senator that voted for the resolution and took part in the debates, "all necessary...force" meant anywhere but in the continental United States. Bush, at the last minute, tried to introduce language into the Resolution that would allow this, but he was shot down by members of Congress and the verbage didn't make it.
Assuming for the moment that this is a sound argument, you're arguing where the force may be used.
How does that exclude the power that Bush says the resolution gave him?

And again... who decisdes what is "necessary"?


Furthermore, the Senator said that no member of Congress voted on the Resolution with the knowledge of it being used on American soil against American citizens.
This sounds a lot like Kerry's argument as to how his vote to go to war wasnt actually a vote to go to war.

You cannot give the President a power and then, retrospectively, say 'well, we didn't mean THAT.

Besides - given the threat, and that said threat might easily exist within the borders of the US, how can you argue that the resolution -- giving him the power to do what he needs to do to fight terrorism -- does not include actions within our borders?
 
Pacridge said:
You think all necessary force and wiretapping are the same thing?

Securing intel concerning the plans and intentions of the enemy is a vital part of fighting a war. Thats exactly what the administration was doing, and as such, is very much part of 'necessary force'.

The 'wiretapping' (which involved no wires or taps. but data mining of electronic communications) is no different than any other SIGINT that we collect, except that one end of the conversation takes place in the US.
 
You don't have the right to privacy when talking to known terrorist, so I answered yes. I do believe that the president should have had secret meetings with congress, and got the FISA act changed, this would have kept this a secret, as it should be, and also would have been a more respected action. The bottom line is, the president and NSA, were protecting you liberal fools, as well as the rest of the rational folks in this country. Now that the Times has made this known, I guess they will resort to sending letters or something, you idiots just helped the enemy plan yet another attack. I fear the next attack will kill many more then on 9/11, and we will once again have those on the left to thank. First they built the wall between the CIA and FBI, now they want to tie the hands of our protection agencies again, when will they learn, when?:roll:
 
Deegan said:
You don't have the right to privacy when talking to known terrorist, so I answered yes. I do believe that the president should have had secret meetings with congress, and got the FISA act changed, this would have kept this a secret, as it should be, and also would have been a more respected action. The bottom line is, the president and NSA, were protecting you liberal fools, as well as the rest of the rational folks in this country. Now that the Times has made this known, I guess they will resort to sending letters or something, you idiots just helped the enemy plan yet another attack. I fear the next attack will kill many more then on 9/11, and we will once again have those on the left to thank. First they built the wall between the CIA and FBI, now they want to tie the hands of our protection agencies again, when will they learn, when?:roll:

What? How is public knowledge of a debatably legal wiretapping program going to help the terrorists? It's not like the terrorists, armed with this information, can prevent their conversations from being recorded or really be able to do anything different. Wiretaps have always been known to exist, this changes nothing except making the American public aware of something that is rather dubious.

Show me, please, how this helps the terrorists in their plotting in any way whatsoever.
 
Engimo said:
What? How is public knowledge of a debatably legal wiretapping program going to help the terrorists? It's not like the terrorists, armed with this information, can prevent their conversations from being recorded or really be able to do anything different. Wiretaps have always been known to exist, this changes nothing except making the American public aware of something that is rather dubious.

Show me, please, how this helps the terrorists in their plotting in any way whatsoever.

Simple, they know they are now being monitored, they will not relay information over the phone now. As I said, now they will probably just send letters, and avoid all phone contact, it really does not take a brain surgeon to figure this out.:roll:
 
Deegan said:
Simple, they know they are now being monitored, they will not relay information over the phone now. As I said, now they will probably just send letters, and avoid all phone contact, it really does not take a brain surgeon to figure this out.:roll:

...It's not like FISA was passed in 1978 and is common knowledge for anyone that knows anything about American government.

Oh wait, it was.

If knowledge of the fact that the American government wiretaps is what you are claiming poses a national security threat, maybe you should be admonishing Congress for publishing the fact that they passed FISA 27 years ago. Terrorists know that we wiretap, this changes nothing.
 
Engimo said:
...It's not like FISA was passed in 1978 and is common knowledge for anyone that knows anything about American government.

Oh wait, it was.

If knowledge of the fact that the American government wiretaps is what you are claiming poses a national security threat, maybe you should be admonishing Congress for publishing the fact that they passed FISA 27 years ago. Terrorists know that we wiretap, this changes nothing.

They obviously didn't think we listened to incoming calls, you didn't, lol, I fail to see your confusion here?:rofl
 
Deegan said:
They obviously didn't think we listened to incoming calls, you didn't, lol, I fail to see your confusion here?:rofl

Er.. what? I'm saying that the use of wiretapping has been public knowledge for nearly 30 years, and the release of this information by the NYT doesn't change that. It's not like the terrorists are going to be like "Oh ****! They can wiretap us?! We better use letters from now on!" because they've known that we wiretap for over a quarter century.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom