Why does the Bush Administration think their privacy is more important than our privacy?

Question

It seems fine to wiretap US citizens without a warrant, generating transcripts that can be used for prosecutorial purposes, yet the Senate cannot put administation staff under oath or generate a transcipt of the session?

Who are they really protecting?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fbi_patriot_act;_ylt=Ato.da.fF2k.ZKiko4VmIfXMWM0F

BigRIch - Get a clue. This crosses party lines. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is the main Senator behind the questioning of Mueller. Go to the link, Smart Guy.

Answer 1

Excellent question. I don't know, but the good thing is regardless of whether they testify or not, it still shows how this administration works and that they have plenty to hide.

Answer 2

As an average Joe citizen, I must say that in times of war, the FBI wiretapping is of no consequence to me at all.
I know all the civil libertarians get their undies in an uproar over it, but , frankly, I think the only people who should really fear this (which by the way has gone on for decades you naive fools), are criminals and terrorists.
It seems to me that any attorney worth his thirty pieces of silver could have any info obtained through questionable wiretapping thrown out of court in a heartbeat, so I think it is much ado about nothing.
No law-abiding citizen will ever suffer because of it and if anyone here can show me an actual example of an innocent citizen being victimized because of this I will renounce my position and apologize...I doubt VERY STRONGLY that that will occur.
As for the Bush situation...
IF there is an allegation of illegality then his peeps should be sworn in like anyone else...but if not (and there seems to be unanimous legal opinion that there is NO illegality at all) then why should they?
Was Al Gore sworn in under oath to bloviate in front of the Senate last week?
Of course not.
It seems to me (an Independent BTW) that Dem supporters have no interest in truth or ethics in this case, but are just interested in having Bushs' people marched in front of congress AS IF they are criminals...if I were Bush I wouldn't allow it either, quite frankly.

Answer 3

Very good question...

"Reviewing headquarters files and four of 56 FBI field offices, Inspector General Glenn Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during 2003-2005. He estimates there may be up to 3,000 unidentified or unreported violations throughout the FBI."

Answer 4

They are "really protecting" the operations of our government as a whole. There are provisions for confidential information flow in our government. If no one was ever able to give advice or information in private to the leaders of our nation, then no one would give advice or information at all. I sure wouldn't want to risk being subpoenaed by a hostile opposing party every time I gave a friend advice. Would you?

Later note: Don't get all uppity and insulting with me. I assumed you were referring to two different issues because I didn't see anything in the article (Yahoo - what a non-biased source) indicating that there would be no transcripts available in the FBI case. Yes, the FBI use of the Patriot Act is an issue that crosses party lines and should be investigated. The firing of U.S. prosecutors is a Democratic witch hunt. The refusal of record and such by the administration in the Gonzales situation is the issue I was referring to and I stand by my statement that some things need to be kept private. The N.Y. Times posts enough of our national secrets by itself. We don't need Congress doing the same.

Answer 5

First of all they are NOT wiretapping US citizens, get your facts straight. Second, the Senate has no legal right to put administration officials under oath without just cause. In other words, they cannot persue their witch hunts by abusing the legal process.

Answer 6

You can't put administration staff under oath unless there are criminal charges. Since not liking something is not grounds for criminal charges, no person public or private needs to go under oath just because someone thinks you should.

Answer 7

Some nonsense about national security. Apparently the government is now allowed to do whatever it wants, at any time and for any cause, and can hide behind the cloak of "national security" to prevent having to tell us about it.

Answer 8

We have pissed away every secret we have, why not piss away whatever we have left.

Unless you are doing something illegal, you shouldn't have to worry about having a wiretap.
****
Arlen Specter is Republican in name only.

Answer 9

They're data mining international phones calls, not wire tapping US citizens without warrants.

Answer 10

How dare you question the President - you must be a commie.