Why did Clinton do Warrantless Wiretapping when we weren't even at war?

Question

Warrantless Wiretapping

The Supreme Court has recognized that electronic surveillance, such as wiretapping and eavesdropping, impinges on the privacy rights of individuals and organizations and is therefore subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause. [65] President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. [66] The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." [67]

It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]

President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps. [70] The cost of that makeover is expected to be several billion dollars. Any communications carrier that fails to meet the technology standards of the attorney general can be fined up to $10,000 per day. The passage of that law prompted Attorney General Reno to marvel at her newly acquired power: "I don't think J. Edgar Hoover would contemplate what we can do today." [71] That is unfortunately true. In the past, law enforcement had to rely on the goodwill and voluntary cooperation of the American people for investigative assistance. That tradition is giving way to a regime of coercive mandates. [72]

Answer 1

What, hypocrisy? No way!

Answer 2

TheClinton Administration is claiming that increased wiretapping authority is needed to protect "national security" from a "terrorist threat". In a July '96 news conference White House spokeswoman Mary Ellen Glynn said, "[Clinton would] like to give the FBI more tools so there will be no more bombing like at the Olympics."
Wiretaps in 1996 increased by 30-40% according to the Department of Justice. The FBI's own report indicates that it plans to double the amount of private phone calls it intercepts by the year 2004, yet more than 80 percent of all conversations intercepted during a wiretap are of an innocent nature. During an average wiretap, 2,000 calls and 175 people are intercepted. That means in 1995 over two-million innocent calls were intercepted. (ibid.)
In a recent speech at Morgan State University in Maryland, President Clinton said, "The right to privacy is one of our most cherished freedoms" and that "technology should not be used to break down the wall of privacy and autonomy free citizens are guaranteed in a free society." Even while proclaiming the right to privacy, the Chief Executive is continuing his campaign to expand electronic surveillance of all Americans through the National Wiretap Plan, all in the name of "security".

Answer 3

Uh, I'm pretty sure that warantless wiretapping has been done since about 10 minutes after they figured out how to tap.

Didn't you know that most phone calls- local, long distance, and international- are monitored, and there are certain words and phrases that they listen for. No, I don't know what those words and phrases are. But unless you're planning something illegal, you have nothing to fear, right?

Answer 4

Bush got advice from lawyers that said he could do what he did without FISA. Oh well it just drives the libs nutts. They don't care that Hillary kept FBI files on political opponents in the white house while Bill let Osama get away.

Answer 5

You will get no reasonable responses from the left on this. They wont even justify Sandy Berger's theft of classified material to save Hillary's run for the White House.

Answer 6

So is warrantless wiretapping wrong?

If so, Clinton was wrong - and so is Bush.

If not, your question is pointless.

Which is it?

Answer 7

One, we're not at war now. So nothing has changed in that regard. War is a legal status, and occurs when Congress declares it (see Article I Section 8). Since Congress never declared war, we're not at war in any legal sense.

Two, the actions you quote are attempts to get laws passed -- which is perfectly legal. The are not themselves wiretapping -- they are attempts to get planned wiretapping declared legal.

And FISA already allows warrantless wiretaps, constitutionally, under very specific limited circumstances. FISA was passed in the 1970s.

While Clinton may have ordered warrantless wiretaps in violation of federal laws, you haven't provided any information that he did -- only that he tried to get Congress to pass laws.