Do you believe the US government should eavesdrop on bin Laden?

From today's questioning of Gonzales by Fiengold (good stuff)

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
Feingold began by pointing out that the administration, including Gonazles, has many times accused opponents of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" -- meaning those who insisted that eavesdropping take place within the law, within the FISA framework -- of "opposing eavesdropping on terrorists" (I can find 20 examples in 5 minutes of that).

Feingold's first question - "do you know of any one in the country who opposed eavesdropping on terrorists?"

Gonzales: "Sure - if you look at blogs today, there is a lot of concern about all types of eavesdropping, who don't want us eavesdropping at all.
<snip>
So, apparently, all those speeches Bush officials and their supporters have spent the last year giving accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists, and all the television commericals making the same accusations throughout the months leading up to the election, were not about Democrats at all, but were about random bloggers who are against all eavesdropping. Where? Maybe on Smirking Chimp and Democratic Underground. That is who they meant when they were talking about opposing eavesdropping on Osama bin Laden. They didn't mean Democrats in Congress. The entire campaign and all of those accusations were directed only to the bloggers who don't want them eavesdropping at all.

I think it would be a great idea!!!!

If it's a call within the United States, they should have no problem getting a court order for a warrant--especially since they can get them retroactively.

If it's a call outside the US and not involving US citizens, the constitution doesn't apply and there's no need to involve the courts.

Obviously if you suspect someone of being a terrorist, you'd want to evesdrop on them. Fair enough. But if you can't convince other, less partial observants, that it's reasonable to suspect somebody, than you shouldn't be doing it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

And the suspected ones need to have the same amount of real MATERIAL evidence indicating them as any mobster under FBI watch, or anybody like that.

Call me nutty...

So of course they know what he's up to - they're giving him orders.

Usual evasion tactic. Shift the focus from their unlawful policy to an intentional misrepresentation of the legitimate criticism it's received. It goes a bit like this:

"I think bad cops ought to lose their jobs."

"What have you got against law enforcement?"

"Nothing. They do a fine job when they follow the law. But those who have a history of abusing their authority should be dealt with instead of protected."

"You cop-haters are all the same. If it was up to you all the criminals would be free to roam our streets."

:eyes:

For the record, I'm fine with eavesdropping on specific terrorist targets with the proper warrants. I oppose blanket eavesdropping on the public in hopes of netting a suspect, which is a practice our Constitution and laws forbid.