Sen. Dodd: Warrantless wiretaps a 'victory' for terrorists

Sen. Dodd: Warrantless wiretaps a 'victory' for terrorists

rawstory.com

Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd, who has taken a hard-line in opposing Bush administration proposals to modify a foreign surveillance law, says the president's willingness to trample Constitutional rights hands terrorists a "victory" beyond what they could achieve through another attack.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I completely agree. Threat of terrorism is far less than the threat of an automobile accident!

To infringe on liberties and freedoms is to give victory to the terrorists.

Warrentless wiretaps, domestic surveillance, arrests of protesters, these are all victory for international terrorists.

Thanks W


rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Thanks for bringing that perspective to ATS. I completely agree with the OP and I wish we had more Senators like Chris Dodd - and I am not even a Dem!

It's almost like we are watching a bad movie. Every week more of our rights are degraded and every week some idiot thinks he/she is safer from terrorists.

I think I will add him to the list of Patriots in this thread:

"The Republic Is Dead":
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

It's way to bad that most Conservatives and Republicans would rather lock the doors,close the blinds and hide under the stairs in fear of a terror attack and hope the government comes to the rescue in the form of more laws and freedoms taken away...Every time I take my shoe's off at the airport I feel sooo much safer...

Since when do terrorists have constitutional rights?

Denying our intelligence agencies, and military the right to gather intelligence against our enemies is borderline treasonous.

If you as an American are contacting Al-Queda, and other enemies of the United States. I believe as a matter of national security, the government has a right to know.

You think Lee Harvey Oswald was not monitored when he went to Russia? An American citizen defecting to Russia, was considered a National Security risk then, just as someone collaberating with Al-Queda is now.

reply to post by RRconservative


But why can't security and intel agencies apply for a warrant first if they're targeting a US citizen? If they're after foreign individuals within the US, or are acting abroad, then it's different. But if you're a US citizen, I was under the impression that you possessed some inalienable rights enshrined in your constitution. Has that changed or something?

The fact that the US government (and other democracies too - you see instances of this kind of thing in democratic nations worldwide. It isn't only the US by a long shot) have seen fit to do this sort of thing suggest that, in some ways, terrorists have scored a victory; they have forced governments to clamp down on the very thing that sets us apart from them: democracy. This is an ideal that many people from many nations have died to gain and protect, and continue to do so to this day. To sleepwalk into a surveillance state and eventually some kind of Orwellian nightmare is a slap in the face to all who've sacrificed themselves to keep the rest of us free. That's virtually treason, surely? Even when we were fighting the Nazis (who were a much bigger threat than al-Qaeda), governments realised that if they eroded freedom too much then fascism had won to some extent, even if it wasn't militarily.

I am not disagreeing that governments should protect their citizens - I am saying that governments should protect freedom too. Being safe and free are not mutually exclusive.

reply to post by Ste2652


Agree with you 100%.

These terrorists live in countries where the government controls everything in the name of Islam Laws, this is how they live, with the government involved in their lives due to their religous preference, by taking our freedoms and rights to privacy, we are allowing our government to control us the way their governments (terrorists) use Islam to control them.

Who is to say that we WILL have a terrorist attack in the US if the government had to get a warrant to to wiretap, instead of taking away our right to privacy by being able to wiretap us at will?

Originally posted by RRconservative
Since when do terrorists have constitutional rights?

Denying our intelligence agencies, and military the right to gather intelligence against our enemies is borderline treasonous.

If you as an American are contacting Al-Queda, and other enemies of the United States. I believe as a matter of national security, the government has a right to know.

You think Lee Harvey Oswald was not monitored when he went to Russia? An American citizen defecting to Russia, was considered a National Security risk then, just as someone collaberating with Al-Queda is now.

Since when is guilt presumed before proven innocent?

Allowing our intelligence agencies to engage in warrantless search and seizure against American citizens is outright illegal.

If as an American I am calling my aunt Maude or other members of my family, I believe as a matter of the security of my freedoms that the government has no right to listen in

You think it was legal to wiretap the Watergate Hotel? The American government perceiving its people as "the enemy" and engaging in unconstitutional acts against them was as dangerous a move then, as collecting data and phone calls without a warrant is now.