Should Court Orders Be Required for Wiretapping?

Question

USA citizens - sure voice you oppinion here, but you can also goto: http://www.congress.org/ and voice your opinon where it really matters.

Non-USA citizens: What is your countries policy on wiretapping?

Answer 1

no , anything that would help national security . I could care less if they hear me make plans for a birthday party over the phone . there is no reason to care unless you have something to hide , the boogie man is not gonna getcha

Answer 2

Two separate issues. First, should the government be required to follow its own laws..... Absolutely. No question. No excuses. No reason for breaking the law.

I get so tired of idiots making the utterly inane argument that "if you don't have anything to hide, why should you care". Let me give you an analogy.

A total stranger breaks into your home, sits down on your couch, and starts watching your TV. Then eventually leaves. If you don't have anything to hide, why should that bother you. Just because it's criminal shouldn't matter if no actual harm is done.

Or another. A person orders child pornography magazines from another country. The magazines are very old. The children pictured in them died 50 years ago. The person just sits in their home and fantasizes about having sex with children, but never is in the presence of any living child. They've hurt nobody, so no harm done, right?

One more. A person sneaks into the US. They don't tell the INS they're here. They get a job, pay all their taxes, pay rent, and otherwise live their life without anyone knowing they're an illegal alien. So what's the problem. Just because it's criminal shouldn't matter if no actual harm is done.

That's the point about the warrantless wiretapping. It's illegal. It is a willful violation of federal law.

Now, the second question is -- should we change the law to allow government spying without a warrant. The 4th Amendment constitution sets forth requirements for a warrant, but also allows non-intrusive searches where they are "reasonable".

So, is it "reasonable" to spy on people for not valid reason, just in case we might catch some bad guys. I don't think so personally, but that's for the Supreme Court to decide.

BUT -- if the government wants to do that, Congress should change the laws to allow such spying. Not let Bush and the NSA break the laws because they can't be bothered to follow them.

Answer 3

Yes. What is to prevent the standing President or any other office holder from spying on his opponents or people he simply doesn't like? That's also what the FBI's Hoover (who liked to dress up like a woman in his home) did to Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. That's what the courts are there to prevent. And to also prevent another McCarthy era from re-occurring. Look at the 4th Amendment and see what it says.

Here's a short history lesson: That's why ex-Prez Tricky Dickie was almost impeached and had to resign... luckily, he had appointed Gerald Ford as Veep, after his own running mate also resigned after he was brought up on several criminal charges of tax evasion and falsifying documents, etc.. anyway, when Ford took office, he turned around and gave Tricky Dicky a full Presidential Pardon! Don't you remember "Watergate"?

LISTEN CAREFULLY AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION: Crying "National Security" is another ploy to break the laws of the land; they are there for a reason! Do do otherwise is just a guise to break the laws and to skirt the checks and balances established to prevent abuse on the part of the government and to keep the government from becoming tyrannical!

Answer 4

If I am going to be spied on, and monitored, you are darn right that it should be court ordered. Otherwise, there is no 'check and balance' against the objectives of the executive branch, as least when it comes to monitoring free citizens. There should be some kind of evidence presented, some kind of significant probable cause. Wiretapping should not be some kind of routine, random task of agencies. It is a serious and invasive act.

Answer 5

The Bush Administration is not pushing for Wiretapping;
it is pushing to eavesdrop.
There is a vast difference between the two.
If a suspected terrorist outside of the United States makes a call to the U.S. this administration listens in.

I am happy they do.

Liberals will be concerned about terrorist privacy.

Thank you

Answer 6

Yes courtorders should be required for wiretapping except in extreme circumstances...such as someone getting a call from a known terrorist...

Answer 7

In a word yes. People kill me with this anything for national security crap. Wake up we are giving away our rights. What happens if a future President isn't as honorable as our current one? I'm being sarcastic about gw being honorable.