What's a single valid argument for the NSA "warrantless" wiretapping program?

Question

Under current law, FISA allows warrants to be issued almost immediately and even allows a tap to be put in place without a warrant as long as evidence is shown to the court within 72 hours after that doing so had probable cause. FISA allows any and all kinds of wiretapping, but provides oversight from a 3rd party to ensure that such powers are not abused and are used properly.

Current law allows spying on suspected terrorists (domestic and foreign) and there's no "delay" - so for those of you who support the new "warrantless" program, what are your reasons?

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the president and NSA are now able to conduct any operation without having to explain why to "anyone" ever. Isn't this dangerous carte blanche power to give to a single section of our government?

Most logical and convincing point gets the points. Thank you!

Having read some answers, let me try to be more clear... current law "completely allows" spying on terrorists and even citizens, so being against "warrantless" wiretapping doesn't mean you're against wiretapping on the whole. Spying on phone calls is and should be allowed, but the question is about being able to do so "without" any oversight or review of the process.

Answer 1

I respecfuly disagree with the premise that the system pre-"warantless" was almost immediate (at least in practice). The truth is that many laws with good intentions (such as the wall between the FBI and CIA sharing info, and the law restricting intell sources from gaining access to "unsavory" characters) turned into a fiasco on 9/11.

But as to your question, I imagine if the rule doesn't pass political and constitutional muster it won't survive the other two branches (the legislative and the judiciary). The nature of the warentless tap is not geared to criminal law, so much as it is geared towards national security concerns. Historicaly this country has used drastic means in self defense, both useful (Lincoln's suspension of Habeas) and poor (Roosevelt's round up of Japanese Americans). While you have sound concerns about the power grab of one branch, it can not be enacted and carried through without the other two. (I also wouldn't accept the argument that one wing of this country controls the branches. Not without a filibuster proof majority).

The oversight you are looking for comes (in part) from the branch that passes the program and the court that allows it to remain.

I conceed this answer is not logical, nor is it convincing. I offer it as an opinion only.

Answer 2

First they now have five days under the new law.; that is more than enough time to report to the court. Maybe the new law will be challenged, maybe not, Congress does their best work if given time for debate. This new law was pushed thru with the bill regarding torture. Mr. bush put a lot of pressure on Congress and it's rumored it will be challenged. We can only wait and see. As for the need, seems there has always been a need to spy, to know what our enemies are doing. Just think there should be some accountability and that's what Congress did when writing the first wiretapping bill. By having any info gathered that didn't involve terrorist to be destroyed. Mr Bush objected to revealing any info. Have to see what the new bill says about revealing info to the court. Problem is it is in the bill regarding torture.

Answer 3

Well, your question was more of a diatribe, and you ended it by stating there's no way you can be convinced of a different point of view. So why did you ask? To vent? But rest assured, you are sorely mistaken. The NSA and FBI and CIA and all the other alphabet soup security agencies have far, far, more important tings to do than listen to some snot-nosed 16 year-old talk dirty to his girlfriend. Or to hack some 60 year-old male perv's computer while he visits the Lesbian Chatroom. Wire-tapping is a valuable counter-terrorism tool. Many, many terrorist plots have been foiled in the past due to electronic eavesdropping. Many lives have been saved. Believe me, the NSA guys don't give a s h i t about you, providing you are an innocent, law abiding citizen. They want to catch bad guys; that's why they got into the business. I DO feel it was wrong of Bush to approve the wiretaps without congressional approval. But I am in favor of the practice of wiretapping. I'm innocent, I have nothing to fear. And I have the sense to know they're not gonna be interested in my chats with my girlfriends.

Answer 4

First off, STIFLE IT LIBS is wrong, the courts routinely allow evidence illegally obtained to become legal under the patriot act for domestic crimes not of a terrorist nature or having anything to do with national security. FR CHURCH is right, this has been going on for years and years it is now just coming to light for one party (the dems) to use it against the republicans, they've known about it and have supported it. In answer to your question directly it is to enforce a police state against us, its citizens. Few if any "terrorists" have been thwarted because of this policy or its tools being in place. The Brits have thier own version of a police state but they are actually busting terrorists BEFORE they strike and they dont have nearly the infrastructure nor the billions like the US does. Therefore the arguement is not valid but it is real.

Answer 5

The only valid argument that makes any sense for the "warrant-less" wiretaping is that they are using it for spying on businesses and corporations. To make money. It is all about the cash and how much they can steal. This administration has set a new level for corruption.

Answer 6

Single valid argument?
1.Security
2.Protection
3.Proactive
4.Prepared
5 Knowledge

Just a few valid arguments that may be used. Personally, if the phone taps are used as described, I have no problem with the gov listening in when I make a reservation at an Arab owned motel, or am calling concering the price of gas at one of the service stations they own.

Answer 7

They have been doing this for years and years, What do you think those large buidings with dozens of people and large antenaas have been used for?

Just sitting them for a court order to happen once in a while ?
They pick up almost all international calls and always have.

The only reason it has come to light now, is that liberals and perhaps democrats who always knew about them, are leaking the info to hurt Bush. They don't care about secrets of national security, they would rather try and attack Bush over the good of our nation.

Answer 8

I think you need to restate the question in mono-syllabic terms, Shiraz didn't seem to understand it.

Answer 9

People shouldn't be calling terrorists.They couldn't use it to bust other criminals because the evidence would be thrown out of court. Therefore,libs and criminals should be for the program.

Answer 10

Bush told them to