I am not real familiar with warrants, other then what I have seen on telivision. Constitutionally it seems that they need to have probable cause to wire tap. Shouldn't that be an easy thing to get if you have the intellegence? I mean come one, if I am making routine calls to the middleast and recieving packages with odd smells that are caught by bomb sniffing dogs...that would be a pretty good reason to at least tap my phone. If I were to be consistantly contacting the middle east in known terrorist areas is that not enough to get a warrant?
Why should the government even need to have a warrantless program? "insert quote attributed to ben franklin about giving up safety and security and deserving neither" Its dangerous to advocate or support unconstitutional behavior. Especially when the government is so good at turning a blind eye and rationalizing.
2006-08-17 21:19:47 · 11 answers · asked by James H 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's not hard at all. Of all the warrants applied for through the FISA court since its creation almost three decades ago, only three (3) have been rejected.
And the application is ex parte -- the goverment is the only party that can appear, and the only party that can appeal.
Everything Bush and the NSA did could have been done legally, according to the existing laws. He just didn't want to follow the laws, so he ignored them.
To Statuskuo -- remember that the legal provisions already in place allow for tapping of the phones, then getting a warrant up to 72 hours later. So, while unethical, it's arguably legal to tap for 71 hours even if you don't have probable cause.
2006-08-18 04:45:05 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it is quite easy for the government to get warrants to do the tapping. It was already provided for in the law. The taps that the government was doing was outside the provisions of the law and ordered by the president, in part to show that the executive wing could.
Some folks are still quite puzzled at why these wiretaps were done without warrants, given the relative ease of doing it properly.
If indeed you were a terrorist or a suspected terrorist, then it would not be difficult to obtain a warrant for the taps. The courts understand the level of evidence required and available and work accordingly.
2006-08-18 04:27:22 · answer #2 · answered by drslowpoke 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are correct . . . there are law and provisions allowing law enforcement agencies to obtain legal permissin to wiretap or otherwise watch and record the private activities of individuals. The current US administration either does not respect the law, is worried that its intelligence operations would be compromised by seeking a warrant in court, or is ignorant of the law. You decide which to believe. Current legislation in the US even allows the government to obtain warrants after the fact . . . which makes the administration's explanations of snooping on private citizens rather silly, to say the least. If the government has no faith in its own judicial system, the problems at home are more serious than the problems abroad.
2006-08-18 04:28:40 · answer #3 · answered by Bocknobby 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because if you stretch the line far enough everybody becomes is a potential criminal. Don't forget that the government should act on behalf of your good and even while elected should do so on assumption of your approval. Today it's terrorism, tomorrow it's having ideas not in conformity to what the ruling party sees as sound. By approving warrantless governing you create a very dangerous precedent and you give more power to the government than they should have.
2006-08-18 04:28:07 · answer #4 · answered by groovusy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have stated the argument that supports the Judge's decision. The Government argues that the nature of the NSA activity is such that it is impractical to follow the existing laws.
My guess is that NSA is following procedures that represent a witchhunt - so that in many cases they are not tapping predetermined individuals but electronically following all kinds
of leads all over Hell's Acre.
2006-08-18 04:38:17 · answer #5 · answered by fatsausage 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't honestly think the government doesn't run taps without warrants do you? They could care less what this judge ruled. You can guarantee there are numerous black ops that run taps without a warrant that the public will never even know about. Our ignorance is what makes it legal.
2006-08-18 04:27:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not really.....
The "government" tries and convicts people without even
the accused or their attorney present in court all the time.
I would guess the 'authorities" wanted that in place to protect them from getting sued.
Probable cause is basically the police saying they think you might have done something wrong, but need a warrant to prove it.
2006-08-18 04:30:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right. That is why the judge shut it down, because they weren't looking for terrorists. They were just spying on us.
2006-08-18 04:24:01 · answer #8 · answered by Matt Beezy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
good question, but what if they dont have probable and they suspect you're a terrorist?
2006-08-18 04:26:09 · answer #9 · answered by Hi My Name is 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is easy and anyone can wiretap.
2006-08-18 04:27:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋