Would you say tapping citizens phones without a warrant is more of an impeachable offense than lying?

Question

about sex acts?

Answer 1

well the pres. that passed the law is no longer in office. look up the phone act of 1994 which gave the government the power to tap every phone. what pres. Bush did was allow for key word searchs. say the word Brooklyn bridge keeps coming up, it gives the government the power to tape and relisten to tapes. since a terrorist could go to different pay phones to talk to other operatives the feds could never be able to find out the plans. so how are going to impeach pres. Clinton now. and where was your outrage when the law was past?

Answer 2

Not. The status of a phone line can be in question as to whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Any foreign call has always been open to interception without a warrant.

The next big hurdle for you is to show damage. Do you in fact have proof that this was done ? Can you show that the person was indeed a citizen?

Answer 3

Lying about sex acts isn't a crime; perjury under oath is.
Wire-tapping phones may or may not be constitutional, but it also is not a crime, thus not an impeachable offense.

Answer 4

Yes, that is much more of a serious crime than lying in a civil court case about something that does not pertain to the case involved.

Answer 5

Not when tapping phones probably saved thousands of American citizen's lives. And, while performing sex acts instead of doing your job...the enemy planned their attack.

Answer 6

Yes.

Answer 7

How hard is it to understand,CONGRESS passed the law,the Supreme Court has not raised a stink.
Name 1 person,an American citizen,who has been hauled off to jail.
I seen things posted on here that ould land you in jail.

Answer 8

Since the courts continue to rule international wiretaps are justifiable searches at the effective equivalent of the border I'd have to say no.

Answer 9

The United States government has already tried instituting an Information Awareness Office (IAO). The original mission of the IAO was Total Information Awareness. This was amended in May of 2003 to be Terrorist Information Awareness (TIA). John Poindexter, former United States National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan served as the first head of the IAO. Imagine. This organization was headed by this convicted felon. The Latin motto of the IAO was, "Scientia est potentia", or, "In knowledge there is power". The IAO formerly had a logo with a giant eye on top of a pyramid shooting death rays onto planet earth. Here's looking at you! But, who is looking back on them? The IAO logo puts the IAO and offshoot efforts like it engaged in total people snooping into stark perspective. Denounced as being far too creepy and at least as creepy as the people in charge of it, the logo was abandoned. Who in their right mind would give convicted felon, John Poindexter, unfettered access to their health and medical records? Ronald Reagan would! Who would want the Feds to have access to their purchasing habits, their reading habits, foibles and shortcomings? What Republican or Democratic Congressperson in their non-fascist mindset would give the government the authority to snoop on everything from the toothpaste that they buy, to the brand of condoms they use? Are the Right-wingers actually supporting the government's keeping track of the frequency of their Viagra prescriptions? What is it about the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that people do not understand? Why are people so willing to negate it?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In February, 2003, Congress passed legislation ending activities of the IAO pending a Congressional report of the office's activities. One would be naive, however, to believe that the umbrella group that spawned IAO, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) isn't, as the research website Wikipedia puts it, leaving "....open the possibility that some or all of the high-powered software under development might be employed by different government offices to gather intelligence from U.S. citizens and others abroad or from foreigners in this country."

Somehow, we are to believe that total information awareness would offer protection. Protection for whom? For the corporations and gangsters that have taken over the United States government, that's who. When the most sophisticated "intelligence" gathering apparatus in the history of humankind invades another country (Iraq) because the intelligence was at best compromised, or at worst deliberately altered and fabricated, the people have profound reasons to be both suspicious and afraid that intelligence gathered on them can be just as easily misconstrued.

David Hoffman, legal editor of the website pravda.us writes in a provocative article where he compares Bush and Hitler:

There has been little ire expressed over the fact that anti-war groups across the nation are now being spied upon by thought police masquerading as "law enforcement" agencies. And headlines across America recently announced that the neo-fascist Supreme Court has once again extended Bush's dictatorial powers, permitting the use of "secret detentions" in the so-called "war on terror." It is bitterly ironic and sadly symbolic of how far America has deteriorated to watch a policy that was once more at home in apartheid South Africa now become the law of the United States.

Answer 10

sex acts like RAPE?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Juanita.htm

I personally have no problem with our government listening in on citizens that have phone conversations with over sees terrorists with out warrants.
that is how it's written, I read the Patriot act, obviously you didn't or are defending terrorist rights.
PICK A SIDE.