English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...taking into consideration the government's reasons for the wire tapping?

Here is the article...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance

2006-08-17 08:44:45 · 14 answers · asked by Happy! 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

14 answers

It's black letter law.

Read 50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. (FISA) Warrantless wiretapping is illegal if anyone US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation.

Read 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted".

Besides, anything the administration wanted to do, they could have done following the existing laws. Or they could have gotten the laws changed to allow what they wanted.

Bush simply chose to ignore the law. And once again he got caught.

The goals may have been valid. But that doesn't justify criminal means, especially when the same programs could have been implemented just as effectively within the laws.

2006-08-17 09:47:09 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

I don't agree with the ruling, but I really don't care....both parties have stated that this is something that they may need to change anyways. It looks as though they are going to change the law to allow this type of wiretapping. The old law isn't very specific as most of the forms of communications used today weren't around when the law was written.

As far as invasion of privacy, which isn't a right in the constitution, the only people who have to worry are the ones calling or receiving calls from known terrorists....the media really overblew the case.

2006-08-17 08:55:07 · answer #2 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 0 0

It's about time somebody stood up to the Bush Administration. We need to take our freedoms back. One big freedom is our protection against our invasion of privacy.

I don't mind the monitoring of foreign conversations to areas with terrorist activity, but to monitor every single overseas conversation. That sounds too much like Big Brother (George Orwell from a novel where everyone was watched and monitored, even the monitors) to me. If a local police organization tried to do that without a warrant, and without probably cause, a judge would strike it down so fast the police officials would be going into court one second and exiting the next.

Where does it end? The NSA has huge antenna farms that are capable of picking up ANY signal transmitted through the air. With their satellites they monitor all sorts of conversations overseas; even conversations between our allies.

The NSA isn't monitoring cell phone conversations, yet. Cell Phones have a shorter range than international calls and are not routed through satellites. However, a blimp, flying below normal air traffic, with a skin mounted antenna system can monitor any Cell Phone calls within range. The blimp could even be disguised as an advertisement, so most people would ignore it. The US is the second nation with a natural supply of helium, so it would be very easy to do.

It has to stop somewhere. The NSA has been doing this for at least 20 years. Only when the news story broke did the average American realize what is going on.

Even if the case is upheld, it will serve as notice to the Bush Administration that there are limits to what they can do and whom they can watch. President Bush is trying to claim too much power. Once that power has been given it is very hard to take away. Limits have to be set, and thank God we have organizations like our Courts and the ACLU to help define these limits.

Remember the statement by one of our founding fathers, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it.” This includes the freedom to make that statement and to do it without having to worry about the government monitoring everything you have to say.

2006-08-17 09:12:43 · answer #3 · answered by Dan S 7 · 2 0

Considering a point that an answerer made on a previous question, that the government can establish probable cause and get a warrant retroactively for up to 72 hours, I agree.

Yes, wiretapping may be important to foiling terror plots, but let's make sure the government has a good reason to listen in.

2006-08-17 08:52:56 · answer #4 · answered by Chris S 5 · 1 0

I agree with the judge especially since the special court for these wiretaps allows the taps to be started before the warrant is issued by one of the special judges.

2006-08-17 08:53:03 · answer #5 · answered by a 4 · 0 0

If we plan to fight all wars using political correctness we are doomed to loose them all. The terrorists are not politically correct and because of that they have the advantage.

Tap the overseas phone calls. Tap any phone calls that use languages of people we know are terrorists. They are not going to learn English just to attack us.

Profiling now!

Also declare war now and use the war powers act and not the dumb patriot act. War powers go away when the war is over.

2006-08-17 09:09:10 · answer #6 · answered by coolforbeer 3 · 0 0

I disagree with that wench 100%..... I am not entirely in agreement with the wiretapping episodes.. If I were in charge.. I would TRIPLE the amount of wiretapping. It is Absolutly.. totally essential. The recent(as of today) judgement by a terrorist judge (U.S./ District Judge Anne Diggs Taylor in Detroit) to do away with wiretapping is a disgrace to the United States. That wench, terrorist advocate should be shot immediately and all of her cronies of the ACLU. Wake up stupid, naive America, it is such trash as Judge Taylor who is selling you down the drain to the terrorists

2006-08-17 08:50:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

ConScum? Is that code for, "is this the start of the top of the solid ol boys conflict video games? i'm hoping it truly is authentic that the Federal decide ruled it became unconsituttion? purely Bush's Gonzalez might want to have the heart to arugue that this examining of the regulation became proper. So, even as does the Bush administration's habit change?

2016-11-05 00:59:47 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I wholeheartedly agree. In its first test a federal judge has declared the wiretapping illegal and ordered it to stop immediately. Not even the president is above the law.

2006-08-17 08:52:00 · answer #9 · answered by bluenote2k 2 · 1 1

Agree.

2006-08-17 08:48:30 · answer #10 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers