Poll: What do you think about the warrantless wiretaps?

[Guetz]

Is the use of warrantless wiretaps on international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists a breach of your rights?

Is this really putting us on a slippery slope leading to the further abridgement of your freedoms and rights or is this  much ado about nothing on the part of the  bleeding heart liberals?

Does or doesn't the President have the power to do this?

Why or why not is this vital to the conduct of the War on Terror?

What rights or freedoms are you willing to give up to insure your security?



This poll derived from The US Constitution Online survey page.  You can participate in the national survey by clicking the link.  Unlike Fearless Friday, results can only be seen when the survey period closes at the end of the month.     But you can see all the monthly surveys back to 1998! 

[Super Scrapper]

1. No
2. I think it is needed.
3. I hope he does.
4. Hopefully to gain knowledge about what they are intending to do in the future so we can protect
    ourselves.

[fanofsb]

"Is the use of warrantless wiretaps on international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists a breach of your rights?"

How in the world can a wiretap on phone calls "to a suspected terrorist" or "from a suspected terrorist" be
warrantless  I'm dying to hear this explanation.

Or am I not understanding this question?

[hsu1]

the vast majority of americans from either party will view this as something that is needed to protect us from terrorists.  it isn't like the government is going to listen in and take notes on where the party is or who you boned last weekend.  the use of wiretaps is only for catching terrorists.  the only reason why it's a big deal is bush gave his ok, democrats hate bush, and they'll do anything to try to make bush out to be some terrible law breaker so clinton won't look so bad.

[Guetz]

"Is the use of warrantless wiretaps on international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists a breach of your rights?"

How in the world can a wiretap on phone calls "to a suspected terrorist" or "from a suspected terrorist" be
warrantless  I'm dying to hear this explanation.

Or am I not understanding this question?

Warrantless = not getting a court approved warrant (a document, a legal instrument) before conducting an action that would typically be described in a warrant.  Wiretaps on domestic phone lines (calls that originate and terminate within the USA) require, by law, a warrant.  International calls, with a suspected terrorist on one end of the call, do not.

[Father Guido]

I waffled between the 2nd and 3rd one on this.  I have no problem with what they did, but I also believe in a system of checks and balances.  This, or similar methods have been used in the past by other administrations.  The question now is where do you draw the line for protecting the rights of citizens.

What if in the future, we get a president who DOES let power go to his hear, or has some corrupt people in his administration who authorize this stuff, or give him bad advice.  In this day and age, with the technologies available, it is very hard to keep anything secret for long, so I see this as more protection for the President, by having a difined process, to eliminate any question of wrongdoing.

[Lions84]

1. NO
2. Much to do about nothing
3. Yes in my interpation of the War Powers Act
4. WE Must know what the  are up to.
5. As little as absolutely necessary

[hsu1]

the only reason there's anything being made of this is because it's gw

[chevy lover]

Agreed, if other President's had ordered this it would be perfectly okay, but then some Presiden'ts would not have known what to do with a wiretap anyway.

[hsu1]

clinton might think a wiretap was an insult about the size of his package

[chevy lover]

Probably so, but he would probably not have cared anyway?

[Guetz]

... but then some Presiden'ts would not have known what to do with a wiretap anyway.

Do you mean like Jimma.....Jimma Cawtaa?

[chevy lover]

What do you mean by that? As in the year he served or just not knowing all together?

[hsu1]

it should be unconsitutional to even mention carter in the same thread as gw.  thank god he was succeeded by reagan.

[chevy lover]

Or even worth the time to type about him.

[Guetz]

I can't wish death on anyone... God takes us all when he is ready.  But I certainly wish someone would put a permanently lockable gag in Carter's mouth and then round up Harry Bellefonte and Pat Robertson and give them the same applicance.

[hsu1]

well i can wish death on people and bellefonte would be on the top of my list.

[Guetz]

Personally, I think that Carter, Bellefonte and Robertson are getting senile but their handlers have their own political agendas and are trotting them out in venues were they can say the asinine things that they do.

[chevy lover]

As does everyone in the political world and their agendas

[Guetz]

As does everyone in the political world and their agendas

Just so that I understand your statement clearly..... Do you think that all elected officials, former elected officials and celebrities are actually just figureheads for the folks that work through them behind the scenes (what I have referred to as the "handlers")?

[chevy lover]

No, all people have their own "agendas" that they want to accomplish.

[Guetz]

Of course!  Those that enter politics enter it for diverse reasons.  Agreed.

[chevy lover]

As do the people they might work for also. There is sometimes a reason behind something that someone did.

[Guetz]

What do you think motivated Bellefonte's remarks over the past few weeks?

[chevy lover]

A number of things: Publicity, just to hear himself talk............... I really do not know.

[Guetz]

Well, for whatever reasons motivated him, the end result is that he probably just alienated a large percentage of the folks that grew up enjoying his music.  Don't think that he is going to do so well when he tries to market the next "Harry Bellefonte Greatest Hits" CD.

[chevy lover]

Oh darn!! I had already pre-ordered the Cd. Agreed, about the alienation.

Well, for whatever reasons motivated him, the end result is that he probably just alienated a large percentage of the folks that grew up enjoying his music. Don't think that he is going to do so well when he tries to market the next "Harry Bellefonte Greatest Hits" CD.

[Guetz]

Of course, just after I posted the alienation reply I realized that I was wrong.... Good old Harry just picked up a whole new fan base in the bleeding heart left!  Now he can come up with a whole new set of lyrics for his Day-O song:

Work all night for the mean ol Man
Daylight come an' I'm entitled a home
Drink coffee til de morning sun
Daylight come an' I'm entitled a home

Day-oh Day-oh
Daylight come an' I'm entitled a home
Day-oh Day-oh
Daylight come an' I'm entitled a home

[Mike Bonds]

Is the use of warrantless wiretaps on international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists a breach of your rights?

Is this really putting us on a slippery slope leading to the further abridgement of your freedoms and rights or is this  much ado about nothing on the part of the  bleeding heart liberals?

Does or doesn't the President have the power to do this?

Why or why not is this vital to the conduct of the War on Terror?

What rights or freedoms are you willing to give up to insure your security?



This poll derived from The US Constitution Online survey page.  You can participate in the national survey by clicking the link.  Unlike Fearless Friday, results can only be seen when the survey period closes at the end of the month.     But you can see all the monthly surveys back to 1998! 

The program may be well intentioned, but the president isn't above the law.  Warrantless searches violate the constitution, and the FISA court is set up to handle just what the president wants to do.  He can't simply "opt out" of the law.  When he has that power, then he breaks free from our constitutional moorings.  The question isn't whether this president should have such powers, but whether any president should.  The "war" on terror while requiring military action isn't a declared war, it's a slogan, like the war on poverty--these alleged "war" powers would be extended indefinitely, since our "war" on terror will require vigilance from here on out.

I'm shocked that people are so willing to countenance an illegal and unconstitutional program because they think it might buy them security.  It's a slap in the face to everyone who has fought and died for our rights.  It's base and servile, and unbecoming all true Americans.

[Mike Bonds]

"Is the use of warrantless wiretaps on international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists a breach of your rights?"

How in the world can a wiretap on phone calls "to a suspected terrorist" or "from a suspected terrorist" be
warrantless  I'm dying to hear this explanation.

Or am I not understanding this question?

Because it doesn't have a search warrant, not that it's not warranted.

The Constitution declares that people will be free in their persons and property unless a search warrant is obtained.  There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them, and it shouldn't be.  Everyone's all for it until the government starts listening in on them.

[Father Guido]

This is not the first time this has been done, just the first time some loose lipped senator or whatever, has leaked the info.  Just like Watergate was not the first time that that tactic had been tried.  For you puppets who believe that if this had been a Democratic President, that nothing would have been said, shame on you.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of the leaders, (Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Judges...), are LAWYERS.  Scum sucking, bottom feeders.  These people, (either Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal), are all professionals at finding ways to skirt the law, or expose the loopholes, depending on which one serves thier purpose.  This great country of ours has spent the last 230 years or so trying to close those loopholes, or clarify the interpretations of our constitution.  This is just another example of that.  At the very least, there seems to be some conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of this action.  Now is the time to clear it up, clarify the law, create a plan of action so that if this comes up again, there won't be a controversy.

As I have previously stated, I believe our government did what needed to be done.  I don't know about the legal aspects of it.  I trust that our leaders did what they said that they did.  But who is to say that at another place in time that might not be the case.  If there is some vagueness, or questionable aspect of the law, or loophole left open, sooner or later, somebody will come along and exploit it.  I say go ahead and investigate, then close that window so that in the future, there will be no suspicion.

But that's just me.

Have a nice day.

         

[billsweeter]

If one attacker is caught then i belive it was worth it

[Guetz]

This is not the first time this has been done, just the first time some loose lipped senator or whatever, has leaked the info. Just like Watergate was not the first time that that tactic had been tried. For you puppets who believe that if this had been a Democratic President, that nothing would have been said, shame on you.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of the leaders, (Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Judges...), are LAWYERS. Scum sucking, bottom feeders. These people, (either Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal), are all professionals at finding was to skirt the law, or expose the loopholes, depending on which one serves thier purpose. This great country of ours has spent the last 230 years or so trying to close those loopholes, or clarify the interpretations of our constitution. This is just another example of that. At the very least, there seems to be some conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of this action. Now is the time to clear it up, clarify the law, create a plan of action so that if this comes up again, there won't be a controversy.

As I have previously stated, I believe our government did what needed to be done. I don't know about the legal aspects of it. I trust that our leaders did what they said that they did. But who is to say that at another place in time that might not be the case. If there is some vagueness, or questionable aspect of the law, or loophole left open, sooner or later, somebody will come along and exploit it. I say go ahead and investigate, then close that window so that in the future, there will be no suspicion.

But that's just me.

Have a nice day.

Very nice analysis, Father Guido.  Claps.  Thank you for taking the time to organize that replay, it is very well done.

[hsu1]

What do you think motivated Bellefonte's remarks over the past few weeks?

because he can't sing anymore and no one cares about him normally so he has to get some attention

[Mike Bonds]

This is not the first time this has been done, just the first time some loose lipped senator or whatever, has leaked the info.  Just like Watergate was not the first time that that tactic had been tried.  For you puppets who believe that if this had been a Democratic President, that nothing would have been said, shame on you.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of the leaders, (Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Judges...), are LAWYERS.  Scum sucking, bottom feeders.  These people, (either Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal), are all professionals at finding ways to skirt the law, or expose the loopholes, depending on which one serves thier purpose.  This great country of ours has spent the last 230 years or so trying to close those loopholes, or clarify the interpretations of our constitution.  This is just another example of that.  At the very least, there seems to be some conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of this action.  Now is the time to clear it up, clarify the law, create a plan of action so that if this comes up again, there won't be a controversy.

As I have previously stated, I believe our government did what needed to be done.  I don't know about the legal aspects of it.  I trust that our leaders did what they said that they did.  But who is to say that at another place in time that might not be the case.  If there is some vagueness, or questionable aspect of the law, or loophole left open, sooner or later, somebody will come along and exploit it.  I say go ahead and investigate, then close that window so that in the future, there will be no suspicion.

But that's just me.

Have a nice day.

         

Lawyers.  Scum sucking, bottom feeders.   Like me apparently, since I'm one.  Your stereotypes make for weak arguments.

Unconstitutional actions deserve no privilege.  The FISA Act says that it's "the exclusive" manner in which intelligence wiretaps may be obtained.  The administration's reasoning is nothing more than excuse making, and there's no question as to it's illegality.  Even his own party says so.  But, the administration has to say something, since saying that they got their hands caught in the cookie jar wouldn't do.

The government didn't "do what it had to do," it did what it wanted to do, law be danged.

This country is one terrorist attack away from being a police state, and it'll be lemmings like yourself that lead it there.

[Guetz]

Somewhere in here in After the Whistle there is a thread that talks about the use of scanners to not only listen to emergency services and law enforcement communications, but also cell phone traffic.

Why anyone would think that there is a presumption of privacy on a cell phone call is beyond me.  If someone wants it to be secure, then they should use encrypted communication.  Same goes with international calls.  They are routed through so many switches, beamed off satellites, etc.  Why should their be presumption of privacy in these calls either?  In my mind, these communications have as little actual privacy as would be expected having a conversation with someone in a crowded restaurant.  If someone wants to eavesdrop, they can.  Why should these things be considered "protected?"

Mike, the framers of the Constitution had no idea where communications would go.  Perhaps it is time to redefine our expectations for the privacy of communications through an amendment to the Constitution.

[HA_Fan]

This country is one terrorist attack away from being a police state,

...or from being a series of craters.

There's going to come a time that our way of life might have to be adjusted a little in the interest of safety from fanatics.  Is it mildly annoying to get to the airport over an hour early?  Sure.  But I'll take it over planes flying into buildings.

As for the wiretaps, I would hate to think they were on to a terrorist, but a judge wouldn't sign a warrant.  (I've seen our legal system at work, and that's entirely possible if not probable.)  If it's genuinely being done in an effort to get terrorists, I don't mind so much.  If it's being abused, that's a different matter.

By the way, let's not forget that the Clintons got FBI files on lots of people to suit their own purposes.

[Guetz]

As for the wiretaps, I would hate to think they were on to a terrorist, but a judge wouldn't sign a warrant.  (I've seen our legal system at work, and that's entirely possible if not probable.

The NSA monitors an enormous amount of traffic flow, digitally sorting for key words to focus in on individual communications as they happen.  It would be a shame for a terrorist attack to occur, killing hundreds or thousands, and then later find out that the NSA had communications pertinent to the attack but that their hands were tied because they had to do the paperwork to get permission to listen, record and take action upon a transitory communication threat.

HA_Fan is right, as long as there is oversight on the system to insure that it is not abused, that the focus remains singularly on terrorism, then such critical intelligence gathering needs to continue without restriction or delay.  FISA may need to be reworked but I don't think that anything illegal has been done by the Bush administration regarding this issue.

By the way, let's not forget that the Clintons got FBI files on lots of people to suit their own purposes.

....and, the same NSA communications monitoring was happening under Clinton's authority as well as under the authority of previous presidents. 

This is only an issue because: A) Some disaffected and traitorous scum-bag leaked classified information, and B)  The bleeding heart left and their socialistic representatives in Congress will pick up any possible thing they can to smear GW Bush, his administration and the Republican party.  It is their MO when they don't or can't do something positive because they have dog-knotted themselves with diverging special interests and an unstable party platform.

[Guetz]

This country is one terrorist attack away from being a police state...

That is General Tommy Franks concern.

From Infowars.com (11/21/03):

"What is the worst thing that can happen in our country?" Franks asked rhetorically. "Two steps. The first step would be a nexus between weapons of mass destruction . . . and terrorism." The second step would be "the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.""

Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."

Personally, and I am truly conflicted on this, I am beginning to think that the only true way to win the War on Terror - and it is a war, a cultural, fourth generation war - is going to be wage war on Islam.  That smacks right up against our values and beliefs, but if the "moderate majority" of Muslims does not want to police up their own extremists, those that pervert Islam to their own deadly agendas, then we are going to have to do it for them and let the chips fall where they may.

[Mike Bonds]

Personally, and I am truly conflicted on this, I am beginning to think that the only true way to win the War on Terror - and it is a war, a cultural, fourth generation war - is going to be wage war on Islam.  That smacks right up against our values and beliefs, but if the "moderate majority" of Muslims does not want to police up their own extremists, those that pervert Islam to their own deadly agendas, then we are going to have to do it for them and let the chips fall where they may.

I agree with General Franks.  We can't become what we've beheld.  To do so would eliminate that which we seek to defend.  It's not a Bush thing, it's an America thing.  We can't let go of what so many generations fought to defend and establish. 

I have major concerns along these same lines.  Whether or not we're just headed for a showdown and sooner's better than later.  I really hope not, but I'm beginning to wonder.  If we could get away from their oil, we could let them do whatever. 

I don't understand why they hate us so much--don't they realize that if it wasn't for the intervention of the US, England, and France that everything between Cairo and Baghdad, Damascus and Amman would have been Israel by 1975?  We're the folks who made Israel call off the dogs in two wars where the Israelis cleaned all of their collective clocks. 

We've got to get away from oil.  We just can't let these guys control such a critical resource.  Getting away from oil should be a national security and economic priority, but corporate America won't hardly countenance it.

There is a historic parallel in our situation, and it's with the Roman general Sulla.  I strongly urge reading that episode of history and the scary implications it has for our times and how what he did with good motivation crippled the Roman Republic and ultimately led to its downfall.

[Mike Bonds]

Apologies to Father Guido for the lemmings thing.  Just carried away with myself.  I feel strongly about the implications this has for our republic.

I hope no permanent offense given.

[mudturtle]

I want to see the transcripts of the recent phone calls between Stan Heath and Frank Broyles.

[donkeyfan]

Maybe I missed it, but one thing not mentioned here is this:  These wiretaps are for intelligence/military purposes, not criminal.  The constitution gives rights that protect U.S. citizens and protects us from the government abuses.  I could be wrong, but I don't see individuals needing protection from wiretaps.  You could not be prosecuted with information obtained through a wiretap that did not have a properly executed warrant.  So if they catch someone about to commit a terrorist attack through a wiretap and stop it from happening, thanks.

[Guetz]

I want to see the transcripts of the recent phone calls between Stan Heath and Frank Broyles.

LOL, now that, unfortunately, would be illegal since the termini of those calls are both domestic.  International eavesdropping is not, so one of them needs to step out of the country. 

[Guetz]

There is a historic parallel in our situation, and it's with the Roman general Sulla. I strongly urge reading that episode of history and the scary implications it has for our times and how what he did with good motivation crippled the Roman Republic and ultimately led to its downfall.

Yes, the road to he[[ (or Rome, in Sulla's case) is paved with best of intentions.  But I don't think that what Gen. Franks is worried about will quite go that far.  During WWII, great restrictions were put on our society in the name of conserving resources for the war effort and we somehow didn't end up with an out of control military state.  We somehow also recovered out of the horrors of the Civil War, during which habeas corpus was suspended.

I think that in extemis US citizens could put up with certain abridgements of freedoms like those that would occur under martial law as long as there was a definitive time frame and as long as power was never consolidated into one branch of government.  That was Sulla's contribution and the mistake that ultimately led to the decline of the Roman empire. He marched his legions on Rome, took control of it and was made omnipotent dictator in 81 BC by the Senate because of security concerns.  He then restructured the Roman government consolidating power into the hands of the aristocracy and instituted a reign of terror, effectively destroying virtually, but not all, of his opposition. 

It would take a very malignant executive in the US, one willing to wield our military against our own people (which Sulla did), to try to achieve a similar scenario.   Between states rights, culturally ingrained individual rights, a volunteer citizen military and a strong two party system and representational democracy, I have a hard time seeing the Roman outcome occurring here in the name of national security.  One other significant difference between then and now:  the Roman structure of government was not codified but was rather tradition (mos maiorum)... in other words, they did not have a Constitution, the instrument that our founding fathers were so wise to author.  IMO, we would have a civil war and seccessions long before we could achieve a state of national fascism similar to Sulla's Rome.  (not that the dissolution of the USA is a better outcome).

Personally, I think that the citizenry of the US would come behind whatever measures were required, as long as they knew they were time limited, to ramp up the war on terrorism after another major attack.  It would be similar to the patriotic bloom seen during WWII and that was also seen following 9/11.  All that would be required would be to convince the citizenry of the need and direness of the War on Terror, something Bush has been trying to do and IMO the Democrats have been strenuously trying to undo.  It is a shame that it will probably take another horrific attack to demonstrate the seriousness and I am afraid that the backlash will be a true and very real war on Islam, not the current surgically precise and PC War on Terror.

[Father Guido]

Apologies to Father Guido for the lemmings thing. Just carried away with myself. I feel strongly about the implications this has for our republic.

I hope no permanent offense given.

No offense taken Mr. Bond.  None intended on the lawyer thing either.  I have lawyers in the family, so I tend to forget that some are sensitive to that type of stereotyping.

[fanofsb]

Maybe I missed it, but one thing not mentioned here is this:  These wiretaps are for intelligence/military purposes, not criminal.  The constitution gives rights that protect U.S. citizens and protects us from the government abuses.  I could be wrong, but I don't see individuals needing protection from wiretaps.  You could not be prosecuted with information obtained through a wiretap that did not have a properly executed warrant.  So if they catch someone about to commit a terrorist attack through a wiretap and stop it from happening, thanks.

This is what I thought also.  Perhaps our resident board lawyers can clarify??
And if this is so,  why hasn't the MSM clarified this to the unknowing masses?

[Mike Bonds]

Maybe I missed it, but one thing not mentioned here is this:  These wiretaps are for intelligence/military purposes, not criminal.  The constitution gives rights that protect U.S. citizens and protects us from the government abuses.  I could be wrong, but I don't see individuals needing protection from wiretaps.  You could not be prosecuted with information obtained through a wiretap that did not have a properly executed warrant.  So if they catch someone about to commit a terrorist attack through a wiretap and stop it from happening, thanks.

This is what I thought also.  Perhaps our resident board lawyers can clarify??
And if this is so,  why hasn't the MSM clarified this to the unknowing masses?

The big reason I think is because you don't just want to stop the attacks, you want to prosecute these folks to the hilt if they're in the US (outside, do what you gotta do). 

If the initial piece of evidence that got the ball rolling on the case is illegally obtained, then all of the other evidence that flows from that illegal piece can't be introduced.  It's called the "Fruit of the Poisonous Vine" doctrine, and it's there to keep cops from using illegal searches of folks.

[Mike Bonds]

There is a historic parallel in our situation, and it's with the Roman general Sulla. I strongly urge reading that episode of history and the scary implications it has for our times and how what he did with good motivation crippled the Roman Republic and ultimately led to its downfall.

Yes, the road to he[[ (or Rome, in Sulla's case) is paved with best of intentions.  But I don't think that what Gen. Franks is worried about will quite go that far.  During WWII, great restrictions were put on our society in the name of conserving resources for the war effort and we somehow didn't end up with an out of control military state.  We somehow also recovered out of the horrors of the Civil War, during which habeas corpus was suspended.

I think that in extemis US citizens could put up with certain abridgements of freedoms like those that would occur under martial law as long as there was a definitive time frame and as long as power was never consolidated into one branch of government.  That was Sulla's contribution and the mistake that ultimately led to the decline of the Roman empire. He marched his legions on Rome, took control of it and was made omnipotent dictator in 81 BC by the Senate because of security concerns.  He then restructured the Roman government consolidating power into the hands of the aristocracy and instituted a reign of terror, effectively destroying virtually, but not all, of his opposition. 

It would take a very malignant executive in the US, one willing to wield our military against our own people (which Sulla did), to try to achieve a similar scenario.   Between states rights, culturally ingrained individual rights, a volunteer citizen military and a strong two party system and representational democracy, I have a hard time seeing the Roman outcome occurring here in the name of national security.  One other significant difference between then and now:  the Roman structure of government was not codified but was rather tradition (mos maiorum)... in other words, they did not have a Constitution, the instrument that our founding fathers were so wise to author.  IMO, we would have a civil war and seccessions long before we could achieve a state of national fascism similar to Sulla's Rome.  (not that the dissolution of the USA is a better outcome).

Personally, I think that the citizenry of the US would come behind whatever measures were required, as long as they knew they were time limited, to ramp up the war on terrorism after another major attack.  It would be similar to the patriotic bloom seen during WWII and that was also seen following 9/11.  All that would be required would be to convince the citizenry of the need and direness of the War on Terror, something Bush has been trying to do and IMO the Democrats have been strenuously trying to undo.  It is a shame that it will probably take another horrific attack to demonstrate the seriousness and I am afraid that the backlash will be a true and very real war on Islam, not the current surgically precise and PC War on Terror.

Here's my point about Sulla.

True, I think that there would be another civil war if the government tried to coerce the population with military force (an important reason for the Second Amendment, btw).  But, that's not the biggest point of Sulla's story.  Sulla wasn't a dictator; he believed in the Republic.  However, Sulla thought he could preserve the Republic by temporarily stepping beyond its rules.  That created a run in the fabric of the Roman Republic that people like Julius Ceasar, Pompey, and Crassus ripped into a gaping hole.

I'm not worried so much about wiretaps catching terrorists.  What I'm worried about is future abuses, like a sitting President listening into conversations between his political opponents, or even worse, a candidate for the office from the opposite party.  Those are things that could seriously undermine our political processes.  I think that this sort of thing sets a very dangerous precedent for us.  I don't want any President, Democrat or Republican, to be able to do this sort of thing outside of the framework lawfully enacted by Congress, whether controlled by either Democrats or Republicans.

[donkeyfan]

Mr. Bonds, I don't believe you have to worry.  The first time a president tries to listen in on a potential opponent or rival party, it will be WATERGATE all over again.  I see your point though.