alternative to wiretapping?

Question

what alternative is there to wiretapping while trying to survey a possible terrorist, who has reason to be suspect? this isn't a fascism/privacy/freedom issue, nor am I trying to bring bush into it. I just want to know how else can we keep certain people in check if we need to. personal privacy can go to hell if there is reason to suspect that someone is participating in terrorist related activities, and if it means preventing an attack. Ive got nothing to hide, they can listen to me have phone sex with a horse if they want.

Answer 1

No one has a problem with legal wiretapping. It has been going on for decades. It is the illegal wiretapping that people have a problem with. The alternative to that is to do it legally.

Answer 2

It's not the wiretapping that's a problem. Wiretaps are a common law-enforcement tactic in this country. What got the Administration into trouble, was the secrecy. All they had to do was obtain a warrant, like every other law enforcement agency in the country, so that the Judicial Branch at least had oversight. Instead, President Bush determined that he would prefer nobody knew who he's listening to, and had the taps installed secretly, and illegally. It's less about the personal privacy, because that was abandoned several decades ago, and more about the failure to follow the guidelines of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution (half of what we call the bill of rights) as they apply to the concept of "Due Process". Nobody thinks it's bad to catch terrorists before they cause damage, but if we toss out the Constitution then we have no law. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

How would getting a warrant have hampered such an investigation?

Answer 3

Actually, few Americans oppose LEGAL wiretapping. But there is a process which is supposed to be followed, in which a judge is shown the evidence that makes the tappee a valid suspect and signs off on it. It was ignoring this step that got the current administration in trouble, not the wiretapping itself.

Answer 4

to protect the rights of the law abiding citizen and to prevent the executive branch from abusing or misusing this power there would have to be some form of congressional and public oversight.

the constitution guarantees a person the right to be informed of a search and/or seizure of their person or their property.

by performing secret searches, where the persons involved are never informed and have no way to know that they have been subject to such a search, the government in in violation of the constitution and that persons rights (assuming they are a citizen)

you cant break constitutional law, even if your intent is to stop or prevent terrorists and the threat is credible. if people, including the president, are allowed to break the law, even if for a good reason, then the whole credibility of law and the justice system itself is undermined.

Answer 5

Other than "bugging" the building there isn't one...I don't have a problem with wiretapping a suspected Terrorists phone or building or whatever...so long as they are wiretapping people they have reason to suspect. They would probably find my conversations pretty boring anyway. lol

Answer 6

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was established in 1978 under Carter's presidency. it was well known that he cripple our intelligence gathering capabilities in that he wanted the USA to revamp their methods and in essence, tied the hands of these agencies.

Technology has increase far beyond what was thought to be possible in 1978 so new methods defiantly need to be revamped.

i feel confident that the government won't waste resources monitoring grandma's conversation about when the kids are coming to visit...but key words do ring alarms and these are what is be being investigated.

if you have contact with a known terrorist org or and org that is known to support them, you may have cause for concerns but otherwise, you are safe.

i want my government to keep me safe, that is their primary duty...when we are attacked again, as i know we will be, these same ppl that decry about the invasion of their privacy, will be the first to blame the government for now doing more.

i have asked for someone to give a personal experience of how their rights have been violated and have yet to hear one, only vague references to the government taking away our civil rights.

Answer 7

It's true that no one seems to have a problem with LEGAL wiretapping but does anybody fully understand the difficult lengthy process of getting a tap authorized? I would think expediency in these matters to be critical! Deal with any government agency and you might get a glimpse of the incompetency!

Answer 8

Though the expression of your position is your right you can't and shouldn't speak for everyone. The problem arises when they have this permission but it doesn't limit it to those terrorist and takes it into the private sector to spy on the people to gather information and use it against the people. For instance...They can garner information about political candidates and adjust their own agendas accordingly. The privacy of Americans should be respected.

Answer 9

I agree with you, but the potential for abuse exists. They could use wiretapping as an excuse to monitor political opponents and use it as unfair leverage. There needs to be more oversight over the program, but in such a way that it doesn't interfere with the program's effectiveness.

Answer 10

Law enforcement can engage in wire tapping but there are legal procedures for doing it. If a judge has not signed off on a wire tapping warrant then the surveillance is unconstitutional. Period.