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?
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.
|
You can write arguement after arguement after arguement trying to justfity Bush's actions but he violated the 4th amendment plain and simple. So you can't get the name of a suspect that you are persuing? All you have is a bit of info? YOU GET A WARRANT FROM THE FISA COURT. It's a simple process.
You're making this so much more difficult and complicated than it needs to be. I suspect the reason why is to again, to try and justify the criminal Bush's actions.
The longer this goes, I think that more information will come out (espically from Specter's hearings) that this really was an illegal action and Bush overstepped his authority.
He is nothing more than a plain criminal as far as I'm concerned. A murderer too.