Is there are difference between warrantless wiretaps on american citizens?

Question

And asking questions of govt officials? I ask because I was 'called out' on being against the warrantless wiretaps, but calling for questioning of govt officials under oath. My underestanding is that private citizens fall under a different category than public officials...for example, we can know how a representative votes on something, but our own votes are not made public. And if this is not the case, then why is it so easy for dems to get the necessary subpoenas to question someone, but Bush can't seem to get a warrant to wiretap individuals?

lol, it was my clone who said it, but this guy (Shiraz) hardly has any support...but 5 people gave him a thumbs up. So it is more than just him who thinks this.

Answer 1

Apparently.

It's OK to wiretap citizens because they should have nothing to hide. It's even OK to violate federal law in doing so.

But it's not OK to require government aides to testify under oath. Not even when Congress is legally allowed to require testimony on the record and under oath.

That seems to be the argument Bush is making. Violating the law is fine when it gets what he wants, but obeying the law is not acceptable when it might embarrass him.

Answer 2

Ummm... Bush can get wiretaps all he wants: the problem is that he wants to get them without having any court issue them. In other words, he wants to indiscriminately wiretap without having to provide any reason for doing so, and with no oversight at all. This is sort of like Big Brother...

Issuing subpoenas is a different matter: that is a demand that someone appear at a certain time and place to answer questions on the record.

Interestingly, what people often forget is that Bush already HAD the ability to get a wiretap without a court order: he simply had to provide probable cause for the wiretap within (I believe) 72 hours for the retroactive court order to apply, so there was NEVER any "security" issue about getting a wiretap. What he wants is to do away with getting the court order at all. Which is rather Totalitarian...

Answer 3

Warrantless wiretaps are unconstitutional, do not have any legal basis and are inadmissible as evidence. There is a legal basis for requiring anyone government official or not to appear and testify under oath. It is called a subpoena or court order. It is what the Constitution prescribes and what separates a "warrantless" from a legal one.

Answer 4

Yes, that is comparing apples and oranges. Congress has a constitutional right to supeona Executive Branch officials, they are public officials. Private citizens are supposed to be protected against "unreasonable search and seizures" by the government under the Bill of Rights.

BTW Bush Justice department had hundreds of wiretaps approved by judges under FISA -- he just didn't like that he had to go to judges as required by the constitution.

Answer 5

The person who implied that you were demonstrating hypocrisy doesn't understand the difference between public sworn testimony and spying on an American citizen without his or her knowledge and without the prior consent (in the form of a warrant) by a court of law which has reviewed evidence of probable cause. A subpoena does not require probable cause. Anyone with even the SLIGHTEST understanding of the system should know that. If the person who accused you of hypocrisy in this case doesn't know this, then their accusation is worthless.

Answer 6

1st of all, there were no wiretaps. Wiretaps is a technical definition refering to hardline intervention. A wiretap is a process of attaching listening devices to a hard line and recording and listening to that information.

What Bush did was interecept satelite communications coming from outside of the USA to persons inside the USA. The persons making the call were the trigger, or flag, and were three degrees seperated from known terrorists.

If you really want to be scared, research project echelon which started under carter and fnished under clinton. The government already listens in on every single phone conversation in the USA via the NSA computers. This is not tinfoil hat crap either, but actually going on right now.

Congress has the right of subpoena. In this case they are abusing that power. Prosecutors are the legal hitmen of the executive branch. They are part of a seperate branch of government. They can be fired if they wear pink socks on Tuesday, or any reason whatsoever. Congress has no oversight on them, except to consent to their appointment.

Private citizens and public officials are different in that we, the people, and therefore the government, do have a compelling governing interest in knowing what our officials are up to. The private citizen enjoys the fact that we as a people must show a compelling governing interest in violating their privacy. Hobbs and Locke are the best on this, as is George Mason and Jefferson.