SusanofO
Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005 Status: offline
|
Owner59: Good analogy, IMO philosophy: Well, you're right about that. But I did hear an ex-head of the FBI say today on tv that some in the U.S. have no idea how many terrorist attacks have been averted since 9-11 with the use of phone surveillance. He said if they did, they might change their opinion on that. So far, nobody has tried to tap my phone - I am not that interesting, apparently. I do definitely see your point, and I believe a warrant might be a good idea first - but maybe there is some reason it can't always be gotten first, I dunno. I am not sure about that, really. I think if it's possible to get one without blowing cover, then I say get one. If not...it is a judgment call, IMO, that is definitely related to the depth and nature of the apparent threat. If thousands, IMO of deaths (or even a few, lie, say 20) could be saved without getting one, and getting one would somehow blow the cover of an intelligence operation, I haven't got a problem with not having a warrant, in practice. Theoretically, I do understand the argument, but in reality if it's not always practical (for some reason, although I am not to clear on why this might be) then I'd rather a threat be averted without a warrant, if that is going to save lives and it's absolutely necessary to not get one. This man on tv who ran the FBI for years said people don't realize how close the U.S. has really come to another attack on the level of 9-11 since it happened. That's because it hasn't been publicized - because they don't want some terrorist cells to know how closely they are being watched. It was kind of spooky, listening to him talk on tv today. - Susan
< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/11/2007 10:04:08 AM >
_____________________________
"Hope is the thing with feathers, That perches in the soul, And sings the tune without the words, And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson
|