SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dale Baker who wrote (8331)1/4/2006 4:30:38 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541604
 
If he had to get a FISA warrant with some judicial oversight, I would be the first to vote for a referendum proposition in favor of tracking foreign terrorists talking to US citizens.

See, you would have answered "yes" to that question, too.

You can't ask the general public about the technical and structural aspect. They just know know enough. It's up to the lawmakers to sort out warrants and oversight and all that.

And a lot of people don't seem to get that. That's what makes me sad.

I share your frustration with the people who should know better. But IMO they're just loud mouthed know-nothings driven usually my partisanship. If we can keep the partisanship down to a dull roar, those in the loop can come up with something that addresses both the bottom line and the structural and technical elements.



To: Dale Baker who wrote (8331)1/5/2006 8:09:32 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 541604
 
But if we are going to chuck the constitutional aspects over the side...

I'm not sure it is as much a constitutional question as a legal one. If the requirements such as the FISA law and other restrictions passed by congress did not exist a good case could be made for what the surveilence being constitutional. I guess you could say its a constitutional issue in the sense that the president should respect the constitutionally granted authority of the congress.

Tim