I think it’s disingenuous to say people shouldn’t have a right to talk with an al Qaeda member. Those who want to infringe on our civil rights always frame the argument in the context that those whose rights are being violated are guilty of a crime. It’s a variation of the “you shouldn’t be bothered by this if you have nothing to hide” canard. If the police want to conduct random searches on the street for drugs, it’s framed as “I support stopping and searching drug dealers.” The point is, until the surveillance takes place, we don’t know if the subject is guilty of anything or not. Supporters of the President continue to obfuscate this issue, which isn’t about whether or not we can wiretap terrorists. It’s about the President claiming a right to wiretap whomever he wants, using some mushy “we’re at war” logic, despited the fact that there are very clear mechanisms in place to do exactly what he wants to do within the law.

It’s also useless to point out what Lincoln did during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans. Lincoln was dead wrong, and the internments were the most shameful episode in Roosevdelt’s presidency, and are defended by virtually no one. Is that really the rationale for Bush’s actions?

Finally, until the Congress formally declares war on someone, Bush has no right to claim the powers of a war president. He has declared war on a tactic. There are many groups, including the IRA, that have engaged in terror. Are we in favor of wholesale warrantless wiretapping of Irish-Americans? How about if Bush declares a war on crime? Then I guess we’re all fair game.

I don’t agree with Clinton’s searches, either, or the Japanese internment camps, for that matter.

I agree al-queda poses a high threat. Average citizens, however, are not a threat. I just think that you should have to give some evidence to a court (under FISA within 72 hours of the wiretap) that the person is linked to al-queda or engaged in crime in order to wiretap them. Al-queda’s phone calls are threatening, mine and yours are not. The government should have to offer some proof to a court that they are surveilling the former, not the latter.

When we talk on the phone or through email, we don’t assume that the government could be listening. This is not to say that all electronic eavsdropping by the feds is wrong. If there is probable cause that two parties are discussing an attempt to commit a terrorist act within this country, then by all means, listen away. But the key phrase here is “probable cause,” and the only way to guarantee this is through a legal warrant, even if that means obtaining one after-the-fact due to urgency issues.

The president saying “I promise we are doing everything by-the-books” just isn’t good enough. There is just too much freedom for abuse, not just by this president, but any of his successors who claim precedent. I am sure that the War on Terror will be continuing long after President Bush leaves the White House, and thus so will the need for electronic surveillance.

What does a potential for imminent disaster have to do with whether the searches are acceptable or not?

If we are talking about potential for imminent disaster, I think that a person being able to talk to an Al Queida operative while in this country without being monitored is a HIGH POTENTIAL FOR IMMINENT DISASTER.

When Clinton expanded this power to include warrantless searches to include public housing in high crime areas – nothing to do with foreign intelligence – Were you as upset about that as you are about this???? Because I don’t get it… Everyone knows that during a war the Constitution affords the President expanded powers – how do we know this – because in a war these powers have always been used.

How is this ‘more threatening’ than locking up legislators that disagreed with the President? Actually having one deported to the South because it was known that he suppored the South? Having reporters locked up for printing stories against him as agitators? How is this ‘more threatening’ than the President ordering over 100,000 American Citizens to be placed in camps for the remainder of the war because of the possibility of espionage? There were never any charges brought against these citizens, they were just locked up…. How is this ‘more threatening’ than the same programs under Clinton? His justification was ‘economic’ in nature, and then he even tried to expand it to include PHYSICAL WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF PEOPLE’S HOMES – PUBLIC HOUSING IN HIGH CRIME AREAS… not just telephone calls!!! I definately believe that I have a HIGHER expectation of privacy in my home than I do on a phone (especially a cell phone, e-mail, chat rooms, bulletin boards, etc)

Also, I think that there is a significant potential for imminent disaster when you get on a plane which is not present when you talk on the phone or write an e-mail.