I think you are intentionally taking the most simplistic viewpoint. The spying can be about ANYTHING if there is no warrant, no accountability. One could spy on their political enemies for example. It no longer has to be about terrorism when you don't have to explain why to a judge.

Surveillance cameras are generally used in public places or else warrants have been neccessary. I don't like them but they have been approved by COURTS.

I much rather have Dick Cheney as president. He's far more of a real conservative than Bush and better yet, he probably irritates liberals more than Bush does, to boot.

+1:)

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

:D

Well said Denis.

I can't wait to get my country back!

There seems to be some strange mental block on this rather simple and logical point.

As for the "let em' tap my phone and read my mail, I have nothing to hide" contingent, perhaps you would be more comfortable in another country.

Try China for starters, if you don't feel safe enough there, there's always North Korea.

If that were to happen, we'd have a Democratic sweep in the elections that followed.

Last time I saw Cheney's approval rating, it was 18%.

Yeah Rodeo, North Korea is a great comparison - concentration camps, imprisoning three generations of one's family for minor infractions, EVERYONE is watched, millions starve, human experiments, basically unimagineable horrors, so bad that SK (and plenty of others) even wants them covered up so as not to be embarrassed for doing nothing about them. Yeah, that's just he we live here now. Go take your meds, Rodeo.

At this time in history, trying to gather intel from suspected or possible ME terrorists is a necessity if we want to have a chance at limiting future 9/11 type attacks on our soil. Closing your eyes and tapping your feet 3 times will not help deterr another attack.

I feel much better viewing this from a "simple" point of view as opposed to a stupid point of view Rodehard. ;)

But its SAFE! No terrorist attacks, ever. That's the most important thing right?

Don't be so sure. Cheney would act like a real conservative and energize Republican voters, maybe even inject some spine into the Congressional leadership. As it is, Dems are gonna do very well this November because Bush is just an almost-conservative and so Republicans will almost come out and vote. That won't cut it.

Slight revision. You guys keep fogetting the important stuff!!

At this time in history, trying to gather intel WITHOUT A WARRANT OR ANY ACCOUNTABILITY from suspected or possible ME terrorists OR ANYONE ELESE THE PRESIDENT DECIDES TO SPY ONE is a necessity if we want to have a chance at limiting future 9/11 type attacks on our soil.

No, it's not even close to safe. The state is one giant terrorist entity, inflicting gross abuses on its populace. The entire country is a penal colony. I'd take an occasional al Qaeda hit any day over daily life in NK.

Go take those meds.

I'd rather risk another attack than live in a police state.

Oh .... I thought it was all about safety. Now you seem to be talking about human rights and civil liberties. I thought those were expendable, so long as we stop terrorist attacks.

Get your story straight or I'l have to start taking meds to keep up with you.

Rodeo, I know you know better than this. NK's #1 concern in the world is the survival of the state (the Kim dynasty) at all costs. Pretty sure you won't love Bush for this, but I think his #1 concern is national (not to be confused with state) security.

RL, I agree with you; however, B2 could do this using legal means, or press Congress to make necessary changes to the law to give him a more agile means to legally accomplish national security.

Rodeo, you might want to avoid the immediate jump to extreme points when arguing your case. :D

Warrantless surveillance totally inside the United States violates the fourth amendment, except in limited cases. What we are talking about are warrantless surveillance of communications to persons outside of the United States. In my opinion, the government has every right to monitor all enemy communications including those to/from individuals inside the country. It's no different than checking people at customs or inspecting packages by mail. Do you complain that your rights are violated if the postal service inspects your package from South America? Do you complain if the customs agent inspects the trunk of your car when you drive back from Canada or Mexico? Why doesn't that concern you as a government intrusion also?

I don't know what either Kim's or Bush's No. 1 priority is. I know that mine is to stay safe while preserving the constitution and rule of law.

In terms of spying on US Citizens, it's not that hard. You go get a warrant and spy all you want.

Some people think this minor check, this almost inconsequential action of permitting accountability and oversight, invites a terrorist attack. They won't say why or how, though. Perhaps you'd like to give it a shot?

How does obtaining a warrant make us less safe from a terrorist attack?

The disconcerting thing in all of these discussions of current policy is the premise that there are only 2 courses of action possible;

A) The current, absolutely failed and ridiculously expensive policies of GWB and his puppet masters, or,

B) We do nothing at all.

Like there are no other viable options, and if you do not support Bush policies you are in favor of further terrorist attacks. And that our current course of action is protecting us from terrorists around the world. You seriously consider that an honest debate??