Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
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?
|
Hope you enjoyed your trip.
The 24-48 holding period is a good idea and it is legal. If Bush is going to do these things at least do these things using LEGAL techniques.
I'm not in favor of either but at least my suggestion is legal and would probably garner just as much if not more info.
So according to your scenario
Quote:
|
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.
|
There are a few questions..... how did they get the info, how do they know who to tap, and if they know the phone they are to tap then they know who the suspect is?
If you are following the suspect and you know he has info, take him down and get the warrants and all the info you can.
The problem is Bush isn't even getting the warrants. If Bush got warrants (even after the fact), there wouldn't be any argument from me. I'd still believe it was wrong but, again, at least what he would be doing was legal.
It just amazes me that people back him no matter what and the arguments used make no sense, when you know damn well if Bill had used this, or if a future Dem. President uses this, the people supporting Bush would be yelling as loud as we are now.
It's hypocritical, and I have already stated that Waco and Ruby Ridge were abuses of power and at the time I would have supported any Impeachment hearings.
Right, legal and moral is what our leadership should aspire to and set as their goal.... not hiding and using technicalities and flinging bullshit around as they perform illegal tactics, regardless of why or who the party in power is.
Once you start to support such action the government eventually takes more and more liberty on those powers they abuse...... very rarely if ever do they right the wrongs and even if they do it takes generations to correct the situation.
And again I ask if there are no warrants, no paper trails how do we know who truly is being tapped? It could be political opposites of Bush, dissidents that Bush wants tabs on and claims they are Al Quida. If there's no paper trail how do we know he isn't abusing these powers? How do we know what else he is doing, I mean look how long it took this to come out and be admitted to and the "investigations of the leak" we have now. And yet, what isn't being reported, that should scare us even more.
Or are you of the belief what we don't know won't hurt us?
And how can we allow this to continue, knowing the next president can and may take this power even that much further?
Where does it end?
Whether you believe Bush is breaking laws or not, we should make sure NO PRESIDENT ever can excute anything like this without warrants. Because I guarantee you, should we continue down this road it maybe too late, when people who are okaying this and turning blind eyes to it start realizing their rights have been eroded.
(BTW I was raised 7th Day Adventist and the Branch Davidians, who were accused of having some far out religion were also 7th Day Adventists.. but you never really heard that info given anywhere.... just a tidbit of semi-off topic info.)
Elph answered the part I snipped so no sense in my reanswering it.