Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
There's a very simple way to get at the "suspected" terrorists without treading on the Constitution and taking rights away.
It's this: simply take your suspect in hold him for the 24-48 hours without charge while you get warrants for anything and everything you need..... once you have the warrants and you have the evidence charging the suspect should not be that hard. It's legal and it would work....oooo but wait... for some reason Bush would rather try all these people in private.
I think public trials of these suspected terrorists would not only help show we mean business, but may actually help sway public opinion back to Bush, by showing what he is doing is necessary and that poltical enemies and innocent of terrorism suspects are not losing any rights or freedoms.
Unfortunately, won't happen..... makes one wonder why, also makes one wonder what he is hiding.
|
It sounds easy enough, doesn't it? But what about when NSA receives some vague intel, that doesn't give them a name. How do you detain a suspect when you don't even know his name? How do you get a warrent when all you have is a bit of info? You can't. So using that bit of intel NSA gains more intel until they have a clearer picture on what is going on. Sometimes things aren't as simple as you put it, Pan. I'm also suprised that you would rather have a a suspect held a detained for up to 48 hours rather than just listening in on their calls. Wouldn't your option infringe on the guys freedom more than just listening to a conversation with al-qaeda?
Do you remember the 21st highjacker, Z. Massoui (sp?)? The FBI had him detained prior to 9/11 and wanted to get into his laptop, but alas, a Federal Judge DENIED the FBI access to his laptop that may have had info on 9/11 and actually prevented it. But we don't hear about that, do we?
The longer this story goes on the more obvious it is that what bush did was legal and moral.