How can warrant less wiretapping be Constitutional?
2007-01-02 04:14:31 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
your question is valid and the first answer is erroneous...
There is no point in the constitution, Bill of rights, or Declaration of independence that allows for spying by the government on it's people...EVER.
The patriot acts 1&2 outline such possibilities in an attempt to render the three previous documents moot...
but it is clearly a violation of the most basic principles ...
security from terrorists? what's a terrorist.. the Bush administration has used fear for the last 7 years to muscle an otherwise peaceful people.. terrorist? they wrote the book..
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Using_fear_as_a_political_tool
2007-01-02 04:24:32 · answer #1 · answered by sitizen_x 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
It is not.. only the corrupt of mind can claim it is. It is an invasive and contrary act to the constitutional right of everyone. Why people would want to lose their liberty in the hope of some kind of state security is beyond me. It is better to be dead that have your freedoms taken away. My history tells me that.
2007-01-02 15:43:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with cvq3842. There are situations where a warrant is not required, as spelled out in his link, but none of them apply to the warrant-less wiretapping program. The FISA court will issue a warrant in virtually all cases, even after the fact, so there is no reason not to utilize it.
2007-01-02 12:34:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Any answer that tells you that it is constitutional is in error. Indeed, the Courts have found that it does violate the 4th amendment.
one of the Partys is commenting on the case, which has been appealed. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/27379prs20061114.html
The NSA has no comment.
That was the decisions that made such a big fuss in the fall. the 'there are no hereditary kings in America' one.
Just because something is popular due to scares at the moment does not mean it's legal.
2007-01-02 12:34:09 · answer #4 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It's not, that's why it's controversial. Wiretapping has traditionally been held to be an invasion into the home within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
2007-01-02 12:19:56 · answer #5 · answered by Angry Daisy 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Good point Michelle. The Bill of Rights has basically been thrown in the trash by the Bush cabal. The only thing that disheartens me about all this, is that many dems voted for the passage of bills the Patriot Act, ect. All the bums that signed this ludicrous legislation should be thrown out of office.
2007-01-02 12:32:44 · answer #6 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Simple. The Forth Amendment does NOT require a warrant in all cases - it has NEVER been interpreted that way:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
PS I hope those who disagree with this assertion will post sources, as I have.
PPS Other presidents, including Lincoln and FDR, engaged in similar signals intelligence in time of war. Were they war criminals? Why has no Democrat said "halt the program?" The hysteria and fearmongering for political gain is occurring on the Democrat side!
And yes, some warrentless searches have always been allowed, consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
2007-01-02 12:16:11 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 4⤊ 7⤋
Truth Seeker - It's because you haven't lost any rights.
Their screening all calls for key words and only listening to those calls that come through with those key words. So everyone stop being paranoid. It would take millions upon millions of man hours to listen to every call being made and the government doesn't care to listen to calls about Aunt Phoebe and her gallstones.
2007-01-02 12:28:51 · answer #8 · answered by Mikira 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Give me a break. Our constitution guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Letting terrorists bomb us at shopping malls, landmarks, and at work runs somewhat counter to that.
Show me someone who can say they were eavesdropped on. One person?
Can you imagine how many people would be working the taps in order to allow anyone the time to actually listen to a specific call? It makes no sense!
2007-01-02 12:20:04 · answer #9 · answered by Curt 4 · 4⤊ 6⤋
any communication that has a beginning or end outside the United states is not covered on INTERNAL COMMUNICATION.
to expand on the first poster read this part where it clearly says it is not against 4th amendment to wire tap. and it also clarifies my statment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html#1
2007-01-02 12:19:25 · answer #10 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋