553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: +
no edit summary
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don’t know enough about industrial espionages to comment intelligently on your point number three. I think you are right as to point 1—that is m impression of the history, but it’s a fairly week impression and not one I could support if pressed. My major concern is your point number two. I don’t think FISA is the right tool to be using to fight drug cartels and, to a lesser extent, I don’t think its what we should be using to fight terrorism as well. I see nothing wrong with forcing the government to use normal criminal procedures to fight drug cartels. I’d rather see a specific set of rules developed for terrorism—closer to FISA than to normal criminal procedure, but given the broad understanding the government gives to who can be monitored as part of the War on Terror, I’d rather something more restrictive than current FISA standards. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I want the police power of the executive branch to be as tightly and closely controlled and monitored by the other two branches of government as possible while leaving them enough room to actually do their job. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)