Big news today about the battle over [url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/patriot.act/index.html]renewing the Patriot Act[/url] and the NYT report about the [url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html]NSA spying on Americans[/url]. The two go hand in hand and it adds up to a very contentious and unfortunately politically charged debate.

Both sides have good points-- in one corner we have the typical rhetoric about national security and the war on terror. In the other we have the standard line about protecting the rights of innocent citizens. If we willingly surrender our own rights to privacy and our freedoms, then what exactly is it that we are fighting for anyway? But then again what good is freedom if you just got blown up....

Has Bush and the NSA gone too far? Should the Patriot Act be made permanent? Is it true that if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't mind?

What do you think is the right balance?

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

catch 22, people are screaming that we didnt do enough to stop things like 9/11 and the mcveigh bombings, but the same people are the ones screaming about the patriot act which was instituted to prevent those things at all costs. pick your poison. personally, i'd err on the side of caution. i never wanna have to run up 2nd aveneu for my life again. ACLU wouldnt mind me running for life as long as they can think they have thier way.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I hear ya Sean...

I wonder how I would feel about that: saw on the news yesterday that the act is not renewed which is in my opinion a good thing: if such an act were to become adopted here, i'd be dissapointed, but that is more because I think that my govt in general is just fucking up things badly you know.

I thinkI've mentioned the release of a potential terrorist with blueprints and stuff here before, and guess what: they did it again...they had ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY NEEDED, but they let him go with the lame excuse that 'terrorist intentions' are not enough to jail someone, even if they have already taped their martyr's message. Dude, I have so little faith in my govt that such an act wouldn't change a bit here: they just need to quit being such pussies here ffs.

I guess in the US after 9/11 there is still a lot of support for the patriot act (though not enough to renew it), but I think you're better off without it. New legislation or reviewing the existing should be able to make up part of it I think, and maybe a new course in foreign politics...?

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Let's not forget that the US government had ample opportunity to stop the Sept 11 attacks even without the PATRIOT act. They failed thanks to ossified bureaucracy, not a lack of police powers.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[QUOTE=Kobe]Big news today about the battle over [url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/patriot.act/index.html]renewing the Patriot Act[/url] and the NYT report about the [url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html]NSA spying on Americans[/url]. The two go hand in hand and it adds up to a very contentious and unfortunately politically charged debate.

Both sides have good points-- in one corner we have the typical rhetoric about national security and the war on terror. In the other we have the standard line about protecting the rights of innocent citizens. If we willingly surrender our own rights to privacy and our freedoms, then what exactly is it that we are fighting for anyway? But then again what good is freedom if you just got blown up....

Has Bush and the NSA gone too far? Should the Patriot Act be made permanent? Is it true that if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't mind?

What do you think is the right balance?[/QUOTE]

The Patriot Act is one thing -- I happen to think it gives too much discretion and power to the feds, but it is an act of congress and is therefore the law of the land. It was passed at a time when Congress gave the president carte blanche to do anything he wanted, and I doubt many legislators really thought very hard about it at that time. Now that we have the luxury of time to review its provisions, we ought to use it to decide what provisions should stay and which should go. Surely it does some good, but there are provisions that overreach as well.

Bush's insistence that it must be renewed in full right now is asinine. With it getting ready to expire, why not extend it a couple of months to allow some discussion to be had and some thoughtful decisions made? We do have more than two options, but Bush's black and white, all or nothing worldview would never acknowledge that. The way he paints it, anything other than renewing it in full, right now, is tantamount to allowing the country to go unprotected.

The wiretap thing, though, is on a whole different realm, IMO. First off, there are certainly circumstances where it would be important to listen in on telephone conversations with suspected terrorists, but the warrant requirement would frustrate our ability to do that from a secrecy or time standpoint. That's obvious. What many Bush apologists fail to mention, however, is that there is already a mechanism for doing that -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA allows warrantless wiretaps, provided you go within 72 hours to a [B]secret[/B] court and demonstrate probable cause. If probable cause can't be demonstrated, the evidence gathered is destroyed.

This seems to be a reasonable balance to me. Why is this not good enough? Why does Bush feel that the government needs the unfettered right to wiretap conversations of US citizens without ever demonstrating that it was necessary to anyone, even a secret court out of the normal public eye?

Under Bush, we have discarded due process in favor of an outcome-based system. For all his talk about freedom and liberty, Bush does not understand what America is all about.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Also, Bush's contention that disclosing his wiretap program helps the terrorists is ridiculous. If you're a terrorist living in the US and you think that you are free to discuss whatever you please because your phone can't be tapped, you're an idiot. There are legal ways to go about tapping a phone line without alerting the target, which makes Bush's decision to try to do an end-around that all the more suspect, IMO.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=neoee]Let's not forget that the US government had ample opportunity to stop the Sept 11 attacks even without the PATRIOT act. They failed thanks to ossified bureaucracy, not a lack of police powers.[/quote]

thats a good point. gathering information is one thing. interpreting and using it is another. seems like a waste of money and time to have such policies. most of this was put into effect under ashcroft and that guy is nuts.

it doesn't seem that difficult for authorities to get the appropriate warrants or whatever to conduct searches and monitoring. if they start watching people without warrants it will be abused.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

He seems too eager to keep that law in place, and does not seems to think of actually adapting legislation in order to give the law enforcers more weapons on the long run. The Patriot Act (the name alone is so fucking implying that you [I]must[/I] support it to be a good citizen) is an emergeny act...maybe parts of it could be incorporated into normal legislation to make it react better to what is happening nowadays.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Parliament in England keeps throwing out or watering down any anti-terror laws the government proposes . I think the only way to do it is give them total power or don't bother at all ( read about Bush proposing to OK torture though which i think would be a wrong move ) personally id'e allow them to do whatever possible , invest shit loads of cash and make a big push on anyone they think is [U]probably [/U]linked to or recruiting terrorists . Then let the country go back to some kind of normality . The ppl recruiting support and future terrorists are only going to prosper whilst little or no action is taken against them . They are getting smarter and more discrete . We need to get tougher to stop it now .

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Something Toasty didn't mention about the FISA court that probably should have been is that in the courts history no application for surevillance has ever been denied.

edit my comment above is incorrect. They have indeed denied applications. Something at the rate of 1 per year. Sorry

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Senator Feingold had a great comment the other day, basically saying why does Bush need the Patriot Act if he is just going to wire tap without a court order anyway?

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

The right balance is balance itself. The Patriot Act is ridiculous in my opinion. It gave the gov't a blanket a power, which it really didn't need. We can arrest people on conspiracy if we haven't forgotten already. Also the whole NSA thing... Wow! Someone wants their approval ratings to hit rock bottom. In the US there is a system of checks and balances. Apparently that doesn't matter to the president. How does that saying go "You don't need to become a criminal to catch a criminal?"

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I'll go along with giving the government more authority to possibly prevent future terrorist attacks. By that I mean making the Patriot Act permanent and leaving the discretion up to the NSA to decide which communications they should monitor.

In reality, people who aren't committing crimes don't have anything to fear. Also, the NSA has admitted they don't have the resources to listen to everyone's phone calls anyway. They're only going to focus on possible threats. They're only supposed to listen to international calls, but I think they should concentrate on domestic too since its believed there are terror cells already in the U.S.

One of the provisions of the Patriot Act is that government agencies can communicate and share information better. Had this act been in place before 9/11 then possibly the agencies could have shared information better to prevent 9/11. I don't think either side wants to see the Patriot act eliminated, but some honest non-partisan discussion of a permanent act needs to happen.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=superdave]In reality, people who aren't committing crimes don't have anything to fear.[/quote]

That is so trite. We, as Americans, have a reasonable right to privacy. If the gov't felt that you were a threat then they could obtain a warrant legally. This is a case where the end does not justify the means.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

sadly, its responses like that, that make me wish the next bad thing happens to people in that camp. not the people who live nromally, but those who fight against the inconvienent steps that really are in place to try to help us. personally, i wish the ACLU was bombed by the ""quote-unquote islamic attack"" it would be even more fitting if it were someone we relased from cuba. they arent raiding random homes and tapping everyone's phone lines as some want us to think. they only spook people who come up as threats and they do it so the person in question cant walk up to a pay phone and call n the next target. just look at the arrests in europe where they find a group of people with building plans and explosives and cash. these arrests are not made off guesses. they are based from wire taps, bank records, and phone records.

its sucks to admit that it might be neccessary and wrong, but it isnt done for no reason. if you value people's privacy so much, do you value the next mohammed atta's right to call up 18 people and plan so much??

god i sound like a right wing nutbag but just think. they arent tappig thephones of the local 18 year kid dealing weed. they are going after the mid 20's to mid 30's middle eastern person who is seen in a mosque with a rather inflamatory leader.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

You make it sound like it's such a hard and tedious process to obtain a warrant. There are already laws in place that don't require a warrant in times of exigency. Not to mention all the government needs to perform a legal search and seizure is objective reasoning. Don't get me wrong. I'm all about national security but we are the ones that give the government power.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

do you really want to waste time when a group[ of people are planning to bomb a train station

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

If someone is in imminent danger then that's consider exigency.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=thesightless]do you really want to waste time when a group[ of people are planning to bomb a train station[/quote]

How is it a waste of time when they can get the warrant by FISA up to 72 hours AFTER the surevillence?

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=superdave]I'll go along with giving the government more authority to possibly prevent future terrorist attacks. By that I mean making the Patriot Act permanent and leaving the discretion up to the NSA to decide which communications they should monitor.

In reality, people who aren't committing crimes don't have anything to fear. Also, the NSA has admitted they don't have the resources to listen to everyone's phone calls anyway. They're only going to focus on possible threats. They're only supposed to listen to international calls, but I think they should concentrate on domestic too since its believed there are terror cells already in the U.S.

One of the provisions of the Patriot Act is that government agencies can communicate and share information better. Had this act been in place before 9/11 then possibly the agencies could have shared information better to prevent 9/11. I don't think either side wants to see the Patriot act eliminated, but some honest non-partisan discussion of a permanent act needs to happen.[/quote] A couple points,

1st, why do we need a Patriot Act if the government isn't going to follow its own rules? It really makes no sense. If G-dubbua and crew are above the law, as seen with the recent wire tap headlines, why bother to put silly documents out there making it looks as if there are process and procedures to follow?

2nd, I find you line of thinking dangerous to our freedoms. As Zendo already pointed out, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, this was one of the primary foundations of this country. The same reason many leave other countries to make this one their home.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]If you believe the Bush administrations definition of fast food as "manufacturing" jobs, you can start speculating what "international" and "terrorist" means.

For instance if you place a domestic long-distance phone call, it could go over a satellite link. Well, orbit is international territory. Therefore using Bush administration verbal gymnastics, this would be an international call. And what about cell phones??? Well, all those signals go into orbit, so that could be an "international" :cough: call as well.

What about terrorists??? Well we already know that the Bush administration considers unions (the NEA in particular), peace activists and environmental activists as "terrorists". And many Democrats subscribe to ideas of unionism, peace and environmentalism. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Ergo, Democrats are terrorists.

[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]And what about any businesses that do businesses in country where there may be terrorists? Couldn't they be terrorists as well. Well I'm sure there is a lot of strategic business information that could be learned from "international" calls by "terrorists".[/SIZE] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]The President is NOT an elected king. The Presidents job is to respect and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The President cannot just "make up" laws.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I agree in people's right to privacy, but when the situation arises the government must act quickly and privately. Too much information has leaked to left wing media outlets like the New York Times and Newsweek. I think the Patriot Act should be revised to allow the NSA or other government agencies to act and use whatever they need to protect national securtiy. At some point though, I agree there should be some oversight of the NSA to make sure they don't abuse this power.

The President and the NSA don't want to listen to you and your significant other talk to each other on the phone. They're using their limited resources to try and prevent another terrorist attack. I don't see how you could be against your government protecting you from 9/11 happening all over again. And if it does, the President will be the first to blame by everyone especially Democrats.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=superdave]I agree in people's right to privacy, but when the situation arises the government must act quickly and privately. Too much information has leaked to left wing media outlets like the New York Times and Newsweek. I think the Patriot Act should be revised to allow the NSA or other government agencies to act and use whatever they need to protect national securtiy. At some point though, I agree there should be some oversight of the NSA to make sure they don't abuse this power.

The President and the NSA don't want to listen to you and your significant other talk to each other on the phone. They're using their limited resources to try and prevent another terrorist attack. I don't see how you could be against your government protecting you from 9/11 happening all over again. And if it does, the President will be the first to blame by everyone especially Democrats.[/quote]

The president already has these powers under the existing FISA rules. Tapping can be done instantaneously, for up to 72 hours, before a court order is granted.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

again, i hope the loopholes lead to your contingent's families being killed rather than mine like what happened in 2001. i would let the gov't do whatever the fuck they wanted if i could have my godfather and friends back.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=thesightless]they arent tappig thephones of the local 18 year kid dealing weed. they are going after the mid 20's to mid 30's middle eastern person who is seen in a mosque with a rather inflamatory leader.[/quote]

Any proof ? Thought so.

[I] "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a[B] wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so[/B]." [/I]- President Bush April 2004

Your president is a liar, sir.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

with a minimum of profiling this should require no proof. On the other hand the searches may be expanded to more people, when that is necessary...

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=thesightless]again, i hope the loopholes lead to your contingent's families being killed rather than mine like what happened in 2001. i would let the gov't do whatever the fuck they wanted if i could have my godfather and friends back.[/quote]

And has the gov't caught the person/s responsible for 9/11 with the Patriot Act etc.? Oh yeah! Oil was more important.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

lol, yea it seems people seem to lose the real goals out of sight. The attitude of: give them the power as long as I don't get bombed, is one of irrational fear IMO. Out here the govt is doing much less, but you don't see me shitting bricks here over getting bombed. Yes, it might happen, but I do not want the govt to penetrate my personal life in the forst place: apart from that I don't think that is THE way to get those people, simply because they might work in code, meet in person or have other means to avoid their convo's being overheard over the phone. It would be faitly amateurish if they'd let that happen in the first place IMO.

I really don't understand why all this is concentrating on phonetaps in the fist place: they might be a weapon in the arsenal of the NSA, but I doubt it's THE weapon....

I will do a search on something my dad just told me, which might shed some light on a few things..not going to tell what it is yet without finding any proof so far. To be continued.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=delirious]The president already has these powers under the existing FISA rules. Tapping can be done instantaneously, for up to 72 hours, before a court order is granted.[/quote]

The President wants FISA to be used in all cases except when the government needs to move quickly to stop terrorist attacks. The President is putting power and discretion to the people doing the job and not letting bureacratic red tape cause another 9/11 to happen.

There also is a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2001 that lets the US government detain possible terrorist suspects. From that ruling, the thinking is that the governement can perform surveillance on those suspects without warrants. I personally think its a stretch and like to see this thinking debated. However, I agree with getting a permanent Patriot Act in place to clarify things.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=superdave]The President wants FISA to be used in all cases except when the government needs to move quickly to stop terrorist attacks.
.[/quote]

So are we to believe that 18,000 people have been monitored without FISA [White house has not denied this figure] because the government was acting quickly to stop terrorist attacks?

[quote=superdave] The President is putting power and discretion to the people doing the job and not letting bureacratic red tape cause another 9/11 to happen. [/quote]

Terrorists can already be monitored -without a court order- under the current laws. The relevant officials already have the power to monitor anyone, immediately, at their discetion.

That argument doesn't wash. Even Bush says that FISA doesn't hinder law enforcement in these kinds of cases...

Nice try - no cigar

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[QUOTE=superdave]The President wants FISA to be used in all cases except when the government needs to move quickly to stop terrorist attacks. The President is putting power and discretion to the people doing the job and not letting bureacratic red tape cause another 9/11 to happen. [/QUOTE]

Please explain how a law that permits you to wiretap a phone when an exigency exists and get a warrant after the fact encumbers the government from "moving quickly." As far as I can tell, the only difference is whether or not it is ever necessary to get a warrant at all, which would occur after the need to "move quickly" exists. Under FISA and Bush's warrantless searches, the government can spring into action and do what it needs to do to get whatever surveillance it deems necessary.

It's all about checks and balances. The warrant requirement, even after the fact, is a check on the executive branch's police power. If you think that checks and balances are a bad idea, well, I'm not sure you understand what America is all about. Even if the warrants are pretty much granted as a matter of course, the act of having to go and present it to a court is an act of independent significance that has value in checking the executive branch.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

Well said toasty. I don't understand how people can wish harm on you either for wanting a system of checks on balances. I understand during times of war that the constitution is often pushed aside, but let's not forget the innate rights we have as Americans.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

After my previous post, I stumbled upon an essay that contained a passage that sums it up nicely and puts it better than I can. Better late than never:

[QUOTE]If a man believes in America, he fights for her principles. He doesn?t cut and run from the US constitution. America isn?t the people who live in it. There have been many people who have come and gone and called themselves Americans. Our soldiers didn?t fight for them. We will come and go, and our soldiers do not fight for us. They fight for something more noble, more grand. They fight for the idea that is America.

They fight so that men may be free. They fight so that we do not bow to one man who rules us all. They fight so that we may have rights that cannot be taken or given away. They fight so that we may believe whatever we choose. That is called liberty. That is called America.[/QUOTE]

If anyone is interested in reading the whole thing: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/freedom-isnt-free_b_12870.html[/url]

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[quote=toasty]Please explain how a law that permits you to wiretap a phone when an exigency exists and get a warrant after the fact encumbers the government from "moving quickly."[/quote]

Don't hold your breath

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

There is a system to check the NSA from abusing its power. No one said anything about not having checks to avoid abuses of power. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts.

And where does the 18,000 monitored calls number come from? I don't recall an official number being issued.

There's an interesting op-ed article in the NY Times today that explains why Bush has the right to allow surveillance I suggest you read. In case you don't find the article, it mentions how the FISA court is not a rubber stamp court and could possibly hinder investigations due to the bureacratic steps necessary to obtain a warrant.

To my understanding, FISA and laws we had before the Patriot Act didn't work because 9/11 happened. We had terrorists scheming to fly planes into buildings that were being monitored, but couldn't react or communicate quick enough to stop the attacks. Imo, we should be doing all we can to stop them before we're attacked again.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[QUOTE=superdave]There is a system to check the NSA from abusing its power. No one said anything about not having checks to avoid abuses of power. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts. [/QUOTE]

You are right, there are checks to keep the NSA from abusing its power. By allowing warrantless searches, Bush effectively does an end-around those checks. In fact, warrantless searches are the very definition of unchecked power. Dave, I've always found you to be a reasonable guy, and I seriously can't even believe I'm having this discussion with you.

[QUOTE=superdave]There's an interesting op-ed article in the NY Times today that explains why Bush has the right to allow surveillance I suggest you read. In case you don't find the article, it mentions how the FISA court is not a rubber stamp court and could possibly hinder investigations due to the bureacratic steps necessary to obtain a warrant. [/QUOTE]

That op-ed is pretty light on actual authority, citing to the same broad rights under the Constitution and the authorization of force post-9/11 to justify these warrantless searches upon which the President relies. Yeah, it says that the FISA court isn't a rubber stamp, but it still only denied 4 requests for warrants out of many thousands ( see [url]http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051226-095631-6780r.htm[/url] -- can't find a cite to something that sets forth the exact number of requests, but there are articles all over the news that suggest that it is somewhere between 18K and 20K). I suspect that the "bureacratic steps" the op-ed references is code for the fact that the FISA cout has found it necessary to modify nearly two hundred of the Bush admin's requests -- far, far more than the previous administrations that operated under FISA which collectively had, ahem, [B]2[/B] modified. See [url]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi[/url]. Bush doesn't like being questioned, that should be well-known to all by now, and he believes that he is above the law and can do whatever the fuck he wants to do.

[QUOTE=superdave]To my understanding, FISA and laws we had before the Patriot Act didn't work because 9/11 happened. We had terrorists scheming to fly planes into buildings that were being monitored, but couldn't react or communicate quick enough to stop the attacks. Imo, we should be doing all we can to stop them before we're attacked again.[/QUOTE]

9/11 did not happen because of a lack of intelligence. Don't tell me that 9/11 happened because no one knew who Mohammed Atta was -- at a minimum, Clinton and Bush had information available to them that, if synthesized and utilized properly, could have alerted them to what he was all about. If there is blame to be placed, it should be directed at what was done with the intelligence once we had it. Agencies weren't sharing information properly.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I agree that we did have the intelligence and information to stop 9/11, but we didn't. The FBI had information on Atta and the Able Danger Group part of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew about the terrorist cells in the U.S. The problem was that these groups weren't allowed or didn't want to communicate with each other. We've got a government bureacry that is so large and ineffective that it can't protect its citizens.

Simply put, a change needed to be made after 9/11 because the current intelligence structure wasn't effective. If what we had before worked, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. So, the government passed the Patriot Act and the President now allows the NSA to act on its own discretion to act quickly to stop terrorists. I think we can all agree there probably are terrorists currently in the country planning another attack.

I understand everyone's concern for violations of civil liberties, but I see some people using this as a political weapon to attack Bush. I do hope the NSA doesn't abuse its authority and proper oversight actually happens.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

[QUOTE=superdave] Simply put, a change needed to be made after 9/11 because the current intelligence structure wasn't effective. If what we had before worked, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. So, the government passed the Patriot Act and the President now allows the NSA to act on its own discretion to act quickly to stop terrorists. I think we can all agree there probably are terrorists currently in the country planning another attack.

I understand everyone's concern for violations of civil liberties, but I see some people using this as a political weapon to attack Bush. I do hope the NSA doesn't abuse its authority and proper oversight actually happens.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you'll find any rational person that would disagree with the idea that we needed to make some changes in the way our intelligence is handled -- 9/11 showed us that. Those provisions of the Patriot Act make some sense, and should certainly be kept in place. I do wonder at times why the guy in charge of US intel pre-9/11 and before we went into Iraq received a fucking medal, but that's a discussion for another day.

One thing that is rarely discussed is that the warrantless searches Bush has been doing were proposed for inclusion in an early draft of the Patriot Act, met fierce resistance from both sides of the aisle, and were summarily removed. To me, that is very telling. Bush seeks warrantless searches. Congress shoots him down. Bush signs a secret executive order to do them anyway. Alarming hubris, imo.

And yes, there are some folks on the left that are using this wiretap issue on a political basis to attack Bush. There are also 4th Amendment conservatives on the right that are pissed about it as well, though, so it isn't as if this is something the left has invented to harm Bush.

Re: Civil Liberties vs War on Terror - What is the right balance?

I believe Congress is back next month and will have to look at the Patriot Act quickly before it expires again. They need to get something passed permanently and take into account whether what the President is allowing the NSA to do right now is legal. The debates should be interesting.