Do you have a problem with this? I don't. FBI related.

[Nancy]

I see no problems with this.

 

[georgina]

I have no problems at all with this. If it's going to keep this country a bit safer, I say "DO IT."

That's a very big "if" and a very dangerous attitude, in my opinion.

 

[M:SteveO]

The important question is not whether or not you're okay with this. It's why in the world do we even know about this. All of these leaks about how the gov't is trying to prosecute the war on terror and keep this country safe are extremely detrimental to the way we try to protect this country. From revealing the locations of secret prisons used to house al-Qaeda in Europe to the revealing of the the secret spying program to this revelation, we are giving the terrorists easier access to attacks here and abroad. Don't you all want to win this war.

There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING we can do to stop another attack. It isn't a question of if but when. I know this and I accept it. I am not willing to let the slippery slope of taking away personal freedoms to begin. I find it pathetic that people think that it is okay for this and the tapping of phones to occur without warrants.

Though there is almost an inevitability of another attack, we have heard of the FBI and CIA thwarting attacks and infiltrating cells in this country. There are things that the gov't can do and is doing to prevent future attacks. Remember the gov't has to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only need to be right once. We cannot just do nothing and say, "oh, well, we wouldn't want to violate the people who want to blow up this country's civil liberties, so we'll just concede ourselves to another attack." That's the wrong attitude.

 

[Geoff_M]

I don't have a problem with the program as described. Non-intrusive monitoring by governmental agencies is nothing new. Here's another shocker for the "Chimpy McHitler is using the Constitution out back in the White House two-holer" indignant crowd: The FCC has monitored any and all forms of radio communications for illegal use of the radio spectrum for decades (in fact the FCC has a permanent "listening post" up the road from me). The EPA has monitored companies and certain individuals, without warrant, for the illegal emission of airborne pollutants. Etc, etc.

 

[Chris2597]

No problem at all.

 

[dennis99ss]

Ah, Sh!*........I really do not want to agree with anything DawnCt says, but......this is very different than the wire tap issue. There is no constitutional protection violated here. If I am on a public street, and I can hear, see, smell something, without entry into a private space, there is no violation. As a result, there is no problem with it.

There is a perceived political problem though. This is different than the legality of it. Why would Bush selectively pick muslims (besides the obvious), and not do random testing throughout the city. Seems like a huge political risk to profile, from a pr standpoint. Plus, its a risk to our status overseas.

Why did this come out? You sound like the guy who is mad that he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but is trying to deflect attention by complaining that the cookies are all gone. No, wait, you sound like the prez.

 

[aprilgail2]

I have NO problem with it whatsoever!

 

[DawnCt1]

.

That's a mighty wide brush you are painting with, don't you think?

If you really believe what you are saying...every Muslim should be considered a terrorist, every white person should be KKK, every black person should hate whites...guess what, every Mosque isn't promoting terrorism.

sorry, but your post makes no sense.

No where did I say "every". I said some, and in most cases its an exceedingly small minority. Most white people aren't members of the KKK. Most black people don't hate whites. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, only a small minority aspire to be, but if there is intelligence that suggests that certain areas should be scrutinized with a gyger counter, I don't have a problem with that. We have managed to not get hit since 9/11. There are those who didn't think it was possible. Every terrorists strike we avoid saves thousands of lives. We have to do our best to prevent another 9/11. I suggest that you take a look at the ideology that drives our enemy. El Al is a successful airline because they don't just look for weapons, they look for terrorists. If that involves profiling, so be it. We have criminologists that "profile" sexual offenders, murders, serial killers, etc. I don't have a problem "profiling" terrorists.

 

[DawnCt1]

There is a perceived political problem though. This is different than the legality of it. Why would Bush selectively pick muslims (besides the obvious), and not do random testing throughout the city. Seems like a huge political risk to profile, from a pr standpoint. Plus, its a risk to our status overseas.

.

You have to find something negative about a program you agree with and then blame President Bush. I don't think that President Bush sits in the oval office and picks the areas of any city that will be monitored. I believe that we have intelligence and law enforcement agencies who make those decisions. But let me expand on your "huge political risk" theory....from a PR standpoint of course. I am glad that we have a president who is serious about protecting this country and is not running "focus" groups to see what a certain demographic thinks.

 

[DawnCt1]

The important question is not whether or not you're okay with this. It's why in the world do we even know about this. All of these leaks about how the gov't is trying to prosecute the war on terror and keep this country safe are extremely detrimental to the way we try to protect this country. From revealing the locations of secret prisons used to house al-Qaeda in Europe to the revealing of the the secret spying program to this revelation, we are giving the terrorists easier access to attacks here and abroad. Don't you all want to win this war.



Though there is almost an inevitability of another attack, we have heard of the FBI and CIA thwarting attacks and infiltrating cells in this country. There are things that the gov't can do and is doing to prevent future attacks. Remember the gov't has to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only need to be right once. We cannot just do nothing and say, "oh, well, we wouldn't want to violate the people who want to blow up this country's civil liberties, so we'll just concede ourselves to another attack." That's the wrong attitude.

I agree, The leaks are reprehensible. Consider the results if we had improved our intelligence after the 1993 bombing of the WTC. We may not be even talking about a 9/11 now.

 

[cardaway]

There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING we can do to stop another attack. It isn't a question of if but when. I know this and I accept it. I am not willing to let the slippery slope of taking away personal freedoms to begin. I find it pathetic that people think that it is okay for this and the tapping of phones to occur without warrants.

To be more accurate it may be better to say that we can NOTHING unless we start running our government just like the "ENEMY".

And just like many people living in "ENEMY" territory, the majority will have no problems with government policy since they happen to be the right race and religion.

 

[yankeespenn]

There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING we can do to stop another attack. It isn't a question of if but when. I know this and I accept it. I am not willing to let the slippery slope of taking away personal freedoms to begin. I find it pathetic that people think that it is okay for this and the tapping of phones to occur without warrants..

Even if true- and I admit we can't stop EVERY attack -- wouldn't it be nice to stop the ones we can?

 

[DawnCt1]

To be more accurate it may be better to say that we can NOTHING unless we start running our government just like the "ENEMY".

And just like many people living in "ENEMY" territory, the majority will have no problems with government policy since they happen to be the right race and religion.

You are aware that ALL of he monitoring for radioactive isotopes have occurred on public property and NO warrants are or were required. This isn't really "new" news. I remember hearing about monitoring for radioactivity in DC and during the political conventions.

 

[mcnuss]

We have managed to not get hit since 9/11. There are those who didn't think it was possible. Every terrorists strike we avoid saves thousands of lives. We have to do our best to prevent another 9/11. I suggest that you take a look at the ideology that drives our enemy. El Al is a successful airline because they don't just look for weapons, they look for terrorists. If that involves profiling, so be it. We have criminologists that "profile" sexual offenders, murders, serial killers, etc. I don't have a problem "profiling" terrorists.

This may be a first or a second, but here I agree with you, basically.

However, the fact that we have not been "hit" since Sept. 11, 2001 is no comfort to me. We were not hit from 1993 until 2001, and loads of people were patting themselves on the back then, too, for having prevented another attack on US soil.

I have no issue with law enforcement using targeted means to prevent crime of any kind, whether it's the Klan, abortion terrorists, islamic radicals, or the mob. However, this Justice Dept, and specifically this Executive Branch, is taking our fears and using them to turn constitutional law on its head. The secrecy by which they operate, and the FUD they engender, is counterproductive to the so-called mission. The more they operate like this, the more people will insist on finding out what they're up to. I did not check my civil liberties on the doorstep of NYC on 9/11. I expect my government, the one that "stands for freedom", to practice what we preach to other nations. That means following proper procedures, and not just when it's expedient.

My step-father, a 78 yo life-long Republican is here with us this week. He is sickened by this administration and its antics. He said how much he is reminded of the Nixon era with the secrecy and the paranoia, except (and this is a direct quote) "Nixon was just a petty crook compared to these guys".