Wiretapping and President Bush (1 Viewer)

[Schweddy]

Thought of this over another thread in "Today's News" but didn't want to hijack the thread.

Question:
If we could somehow go back in time and find that unwarrented public international telephone "wiretapping" would have prevented 911 - would you condone the use of it today?

This is a "what if" not a "we can't prove that" thread.

 

[Donkey1499]

Thought of this over another thread in "Today's News" but didn't want to hijack the thread.

Question:
If we could somehow go back in time and find that unwarrented public international telephone "wiretapping" would have prevented 911 - would you condone the use of it today?

This is a "what if" not a "we can't prove that" thread.

I'm all for that James Bond stuff. The more spying the better! If it prevents terrorist attacks then good!

[PS vauge, how are those mod applications coming along?]

 

[Schweddy]

We are taking a small break - next week we will start going through them again.

 

[jfuh]

Thought of this over another thread in "Today's News" but didn't want to hijack the thread.

Question:
If we could somehow go back in time and find that unwarrented public international telephone "wiretapping" would have prevented 911 - would you condone the use of it today?

This is a "what if" not a "we can't prove that" thread.

Doesn't the NSA do that already?

 

[danarhea]

Thought of this over another thread in "Today's News" but didn't want to hijack the thread.

Question:
If we could somehow go back in time and find that unwarrented public international telephone "wiretapping" would have prevented 911 - would you condone the use of it today?

This is a "what if" not a "we can't prove that" thread.

That is kind of a red herring. If the FBI and CIA had done their job, there would have been no 911, and no laws would have been broken either. By trashing the Constitution, we are doing to ourselves exactly what the terrorists want.

 

[Donkey1499]

We are taking a small break - next week we will start going through them again.

Good, GOOD! (rubbing hands menacingly)

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If we could somehow go back in time and find that unwarrented public international telephone "wiretapping" would have prevented 911 - would you condone the use of it today?

No. What good is protecting the lives of American citizens when you kill what they stand for?

If we abandon the rule of law, due process, and our most basic protections against tyrannical government, how long do you suppose it would take for the government to kill 3000 people? One year? Ten?

Our government is limited for a reason.

 

[cnredd]

No. What good is protecting the lives of American citizens when you kill what they stand for?

If we abandon the rule of law, due process, and our most basic protections against tyrannical government, how long do you suppose it would take for the government to kill 3000 people? One year? Ten?

Our government is limited for a reason.

So if a building was on fire and you broke a window, jumped in and broke someone's arm while carrying them to safety, you'd fully expect to get arrested for vandalism, breaking and entering, and assault, right?...

You know..."due process" and all...:roll:

"If GWB jumped in the river and saved an old lady from drowning, some people would want him fined for "fishing without a license" - cnredd

 

[chesswarsnow]

So if a building was on fire and you broke a window, jumped in and broke someone's arm while carrying them to safety, you'd fully expect to get arrested for vandalism, breaking and entering, and assault, right?...

You know..."due process" and all...:roll:

"If GWB jumped in the river and saved an old lady from drowning, some people would want him fined for "fishing without a license" - cnredd

Sorry bout that,

1. I agree with cnredd, this is just another liberal media talking point, that the liberal media keeps hashing out to have some supposed dirt to throw on Bush and his Presidency, on the Nightly News every night.
2. Its an old law dates back to the 1970's.
3. Why are they crying foul now?
4. They the Liberal Media, are in a massive smear campaign, which to do this they need dirt. Any dirt, even non dirt.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[cnredd]

Sorry bout that,

1. I agree with cnredd, this is just another liberal media talking point, that the liberal media keeps hashing out to have some supposed dirt to throw on Bush and his Presidency, on the Nightly News every night.
2. Its an old law dates back to the 1970's.
3. Why are they crying foul now?
4. They the Liberal Media, are in a massive smear campaign, which to do this they need dirt. Any dirt, even non dirt.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

We can do without the sterotyping...

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So if a building was on fire and you broke a window, jumped in and broke someone's arm while carrying them to safety, you'd fully expect to get arrested for vandalism, breaking and entering, and assault, right?...

Bad analogy. If I broke a window, jumped in, and broke someone's arm to get them out of a building because I knew it would catch fire later-- or doing so would somehow prevent the building from catching fire-- then yes, I would expect to face charges.

If we could've eavesdropped on those planes while they were in the air-- and that would've prevented them from flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-- then yes, I'd support that fully.

Just like I would have supported shooting those planes down without granting the hijackers or their hostages "due process".

And this isn't about President Bush. If we had elected Kerry and he were engaging in warrantless wiretapping and other violations of the Bill of Rights, I would be opposing it as well.

 

[cnredd]

Bad analogy. If I broke a window, jumped in, and broke someone's arm to get them out of a building because I knew it would catch fire later-- or doing so would somehow prevent the building from catching fire-- then yes, I would expect to face charges.

You're nuts...

You'd be given the key to the city and be proclaimed a hero...

If we could've eavesdropped on those planes while they were in the air-- and that would've prevented them from flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon-- then yes, I'd support that fully.

Wouldn't of worked...They already have what was said...

The terrorists kept telling the people in the plane(and overheard on the radio) that they were going back to the airport to land...

If you are under the impression that they publicly told anyone "We're going to ram this plane into a building.", you'd be wrong...

That's is exactly the reason why Flight 93 retaliated...Through cell phones, they found out what was going on...If they just sat back and believed the terrorists, they would've ended up crashing into a building too...

So "eavesdropping" on the plane would've been useless...

Just like I would have supported shooting those planes down without granting the hijackers or their hostages "due process".

Agreed, but this has to do with what?...

And this isn't about President Bush. If we had elected Kerry and he were engaging in warrantless wiretapping and other violations of the Bill of Rights, I would be opposing it as well.

If there were violations, there would be indictments and convictions...

All I see are discussions and people like you who have concluded "guilty until proven innocent"...:shrug: