Sox, sox, sox...you're making all my points (see below) for me.

"So your saying that terrorists deserve civil liberties like normal Americans."
Since CitizenB never once used the words "terrorists," you're putting words in your opponent's mouth.  This technique is called strawman: you change your opponent's words and then argue against the change that only YOU made. Wrong, unfair, and juvenile, sox.

"The fact is that Bush is not spying on everyday Americans. He does not pick names out of a hat and say, lets see what this person is talking about today."
Sox, while the word picture certainly is absurd, it is again YOUR word picture. Reporting on this topic shows that we don't know that your first three words "The fact is" are true. That's our problem.

"Obviously, the government has leads on these people and taps them for a reason that links them to terrorists."
Obviously?  The FBI doesn't think so (see link above). Not that the FBI has particularly clean hands in this regard.

"So your also saying that you would not give up a civil liberty so save American lives, very considerate of you."
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  Thomas Jefferson

"Do you think that there is no reason that Bush did not get warrants, do not be ignorant, there has to be reasons. We have not heard the whole side of the government's story, but there are reasons why they have not said this."
Blind faith, sox. Would you accept this blind faith if it were President Gore or President Kerry in office?

"It seems as though democrats think that the government did this for no reason and they wanted to ignore the law."
Yes. When you've made the point that the government hasn't given us reasons, we tend to conclude that there are no good reasons. And we should be critical when we're given no good reasons: I call upon my fellow citizens everywhere to cooperate with me in making this the most efficient and the cleanest example of public enterprise the world has ever seen. It is time to provide a smashing answer for those cynical men who say that a democracy cannot be honest and efficient. If you will help, this can be done. I, therefore, hope you will watch the work in every corner of this Nation. Feel free to criticize. Tell me of instances where work can be done better, or where improper practices prevail. FDR...and...To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt  

"The point is that when it comes between giving up a civil liberty, and saving American lives, I would choose saving American lives, obviously the democrats' would choose former, this is why they are weak on homeland security."
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.  Benjamin Franklin

hah When was the constitution written? When was the war on terrorism started? The founders of our country were not facing such the same problems and the same enemy we are. Times change and we have to adapt to it. Oh what a way to end your article, a radical view of our legal system that could say much more than it is meant to say, or says much more than you want it to say. Either way it still encompasses a whole world of legal issues that has little to do with the topic at hand. Especially considering how much of a cesspool our courts our in, at last we have had chance to get some more level minded, well moralled justices, and frankly, Bush should be commended on his appointments. But that is a WHOLE other issue that we should not get into. My point is that times change, the country is not the same as it used to be, Frankin's views cannot be applied to the issue at hand. Again you balance the saving of human lives with a violation of the constitution, even though there has been no proven violation because we have not heard all of the story considering the legality of illegality of the actions that have been taken.

The core problem with liberals is that they are too afraid of losing their ass. They make up the excuse that since they dont believe in the war as a reason they should not fight in it and protect their fellow Americans. They put themselves in front of protecting the freedoms of Americans. Oh by saying, "the freedoms that make America great," makes you sound profound and that you must be right because obviously who would put their lives in front of the freedom of America. Do you not get the fact freedom is what Bush is trying to protect from the people that aim to abolish it. You have the logic fly, you shouldn't even be involved in this discussion.

Same question I asked sox:  Have you even read the links I provided?

It seems so clear:

IF the government knows of a suspected terrorist, and needs to eavesdrop...

THEN the government goes to court to get a warrant, eavesdrops, and hopefully catches, arrests, prosecutes, and punishes said terrorist.

In what part of the process are we allowing suspected terrorists to communicate?

-------------

If it is only suspected terrorists who are being wiretapped, then what's wrong with getting a warrant?  A suspected terrorist does not have a right to privacy - that's part of the law and not under debate.  An innocent person does, whether you like it or not.

Nobody thinks we shouldn't listen in on terrorist phone calls.  NOBODY.  If someone is under suspicion, get a warrant.  Get out the FBI. Get out your guns, get out the big guns, and if they've committed a crime - GET THEM.  But if they haven't, then they (and me, and you) deserve every right to privacy.

Remember, prior to 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack in the US was the Oklahoma City Bombing.  2 guys with a rental truck and a fertilizer-based bomb killed 300+ Americans, many of whom were children.  Do you think terrorists are only Muslims?  Terrorists can clearly be of any race.  Even yours.

Rights are not Rights unless they apply to everyone.  The Constitution is not the Constitution if it has asterisks and exceptions.  If you don't like what the Constitution says, if you think it's outdated, then the only thing you can do is amend it.  Nobody gets to ignore the Constitution.

It's cowardly to not face the enemy as Americans who stand by the Constitution when they fight.

It's cowardly to torture your enemy because you fear him so much you believe you're justified in abandoning the values you learned in home and church.

It's cowardly to be willing to kill thousands of civilians so that you can be safer.

etcetera.