The Wiretapping Debate

Colorado Springs residents agree putting a stop to terrorist plots within U.S. borders is essential, but some say since 9-11, government snooping is going too far.

Part of the debate centers on a sophisticated enemy that doesn't wear a military uniform: terrorists, who operate in secret, and could strike anywhere at any time.

Homeland security consultant A.J. Briding points out that creates a difficult defensive problem.

"The physical defenses you would have to put in place to stop all that is overwhelming," Briding said.

In other words, if shielding every possible point of attack isn't possible, the other line of defense is knowing what to expect before it happens.

"Until you get the intel on who they are what they are about what they want to attack, you're basically fighting their war. So intel is by far the most effective way to defend against terrorist attack, and there are a lot of ways to pursue that intel," said Briding

And that's where author and civil liberties spokesperson Loring Wirbel believes the Bush administration is going too far, and skirting existing wire-tapping law.

"Since 9-11 the flood gates opened and they said no restrictions matter anymore and we'll just watch who we see fit to watch," said Wirbel

So far, he doesn't believe the president's methods are paying off, and that surveillance rules need to be solidified.

"If you start making exception to those laws, the laws have no business being on the books.

But Briding says against a rapidly changing enemy and shifting national policies, the rules will likely stay up for discussion.

"There's always room to say I interpret that this way or this gives me this, and that gets debated in congress where it should be."