2006-09-13 08:29:56 · 15 answers · asked by kaseykgirl9 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes. The agencies under the executive branch need approval from a judicial authority before placing any kind of surveillance on an individual. This is part of the checks and balances built into the constitution.
The "war on terror" has got people so frightened that we are willing to give up certain liberties to ensure our safety. Personally, I say "FIE on that!" It is our government's policies that get us into these kinds of messes in the first place. Let the government deal with the situation, without infringing upon my rights.
As a US Soldier, I travel internationally quite a bit. And occasionally, when I talk on the phone with my wife, I use words like "al-Qaeda", "bomb", "terrorist", "Osama bin-Laden", etc. Does that mean I should have Uncle Sugar listening to my phone calls home to my wife? I don't think so.
2006-09-13 08:42:23 · answer #1 · answered by Danzarth 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The FISA Act of 1978 does allow the president to authorize warrantless wiretaps in National Security cases, but makes the caveat that a warrant must be sought from the FISA court within 72 hours of the action being taken. There is also Constitutional authority provided to the president during times of war. A federal judge has ruled the program unconstitutional, but most experts expect the ruling to be overturned. I don't agree with this program as I don't like secret courts in the first place. However, every president since Jimmy Carter has used these same FISA provisions during their terms. If you want to make indictments about conduct let's make indictments on a broader scale than just one man. Unless you make your arguments just because Mr. Bush is doing it.
To the questioner I realize you said President of The United States. The last comment is for those who immediately latch onto Mr. Bush.
2006-09-13 08:51:43 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to federal law, YES!
Read 50 USC §1801 et al (FISA). Warrantless wiretapping is illegal if anyone US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation.
Then 18 USC § 2511: Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted".
Bush's argument is that the Constitution grants his office inherent authority to ignore federal law whenever he wants. This argument has been consistently rejected by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, at least three times in as many years.
2006-09-13 08:45:26 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, a search warrant is required. But as he has proven consistently, Georgy Boy isn't real concerned with any of our civil rights. This is only one of the reasons "impeachment" is being whispered in the halls of Congress. After the November elections, that whisper may become a roar.
2006-09-13 08:34:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lol i substitute into thinking the comparable, it relatively is totally almost as though McCain is accepting that Obama will win, from what I examine and observed. in spite of the indisputable fact that i does no longer call it an endorsement, very almost like an attractiveness of defeat and prefer somebody else mentioned saving face for a huge defeat. yet do no longer count variety him out yet, he nevertheless has of undertaking. Btw i won't have the ability to vote yet so I have no place in this
2016-09-30 22:16:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! George thinks he's above the law like all the 10 million other wealthy bastards in this country!
Impeaching him would be a blessing to the citizens of this country since he's given carte blanche to all his fellow cronies to fleece us all!!!!!
2006-09-16 13:58:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes - of course.
However technology exists that can protect millions of Americans by non-specifically scanning communications into to US from targeted suspects.
While this technology is outside legal precedents, I am glad that it exists and hope it is being used aggressively to hunt down our enemies and prevent future attacks against US.
2006-09-13 08:42:35 · answer #7 · answered by timtracey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if it is unreasonable. The 4th Amendment clearly states that our rights are protected against "...UNREASONABLE search and seizure...". If you are receiving phone calls from a known terrorists, tapping your lines is not unreasonable.
2006-09-13 08:42:26 · answer #8 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's suppose to so why has"nt been jailed , it just blows my mind that he thinks he's there above the law and why are'nt you people up in arms over this!
2006-09-13 16:33:45 · answer #9 · answered by astro_dj 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to law he does
2006-09-16 18:59:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋