English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Should the U.S government be able to wiretap American Citizens without a warrant when those citizens are suspected terrorists?
should they do period.....?

please list any possible sources... thanks

2007-07-30 22:28:25 · 10 answers · asked by shrtcke_oz 1 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

10 answers

No.

First, it's unconstitutional. See 4th Amendment.
Second, it's illegal. See 18 USC 2511, and 50 USC 180x.

That being said, the current laws (FISA, 50 USC 180x) do allow for warrantless wiretapping up to 72 hours before the investigators need to ask for a warrant. And the request can be made to the FISA court, which has secret proceedings and no notice of the warrant is given to the targets.

The issue that some people seem to ignore is that in the US, we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That's a matter of constitutional law. So, it's not a matter of wiretapping terrorists. It's a matter of wiretapping people who we think MIGHT be terrorists, before that is proven anywhere or to any degree.

That's why the warrant requirements exist in the 4th Amendment -- the set a minimum threshold of proof (probable cause) before that much intrusion is allowed.

And again, your question was for tapping US citizens -- the rules for tapping foreign communications when both parties are outside the US are very different. The above only applies when tapping people in the US.

Finally, a govt that violates its own laws has no claim of legal (or moral) authority to protect us. Because it's supposed to be protecting us from people breaking the laws -- and it cannot do that when it is breaking the laws itself. Either we are a nation of laws, and we follow those laws, or we're no better than the terrorists we claim to oppose.

2007-07-30 22:31:38 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 1

1

2016-06-10 14:06:18 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Should they? Or shouldn't they? I really do not give a rats rear HOW they stop the butchers, as long as they do. If you are saying something on the phone about bombing, blowing up, killing anything that you would be worried that the government might hear? Then tuff, . If they don't and another couple of thousand die, then you will hear, another 2 years worth about CIA, and FBI and how they failed. Get them, got a problem with that, don't be talking to suspects overseas on the phone. I find it absolutely hilarious that the left can not see the constitutional right for citizens to own guns, but they can find the right to talk on the phone without any restrictions.

2007-07-30 23:16:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

They're not. They're listening to terrorists or people calling terrorists. Liberals like to get their panties in a bunch about this so called "illegal" wiretapping, but they are going through the FISA courts first. It's funny that liberals kick and scream about this, but have no problem with the government putting surveillance cameras up at every corner.

2007-07-30 23:00:40 · answer #4 · answered by AmericanPatriot 3 · 1 1

If there is sufficient probable cause to suspect someone of terrorist actitivities, any judge will sign a warrant. A government that acts without going to magistrate for a warrant is a goverment that is asking to be challenged.

2007-07-30 22:33:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Why would wiretapping a suspected terrorist be unreasonable ( citing 4th amendment)?? I suspect that it would not br unreasonable, unless your a liberal, who coddles terrorists in the first place. If they do no wrong, then why worry ?

2007-07-30 22:36:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

It grew to become into the dems and it grew to become into incorrect and anybody knows it grew to become into incorrect. Now enable's replace that slightly so as that we make confident we get the full tale promptly. What occasion and what president (and his occasion) positioned cord faucets on the dems and on standard human beings? Oh, confident, that grew to become into Nixon and now Bush and the GOP. And, what occasion amassed up harmless Palestinian households and harmless muslims and had them deported whether it grew to become into shown repeatedly they had no connections to terrorism or al Queda? that's no diverse than what FDR did with the jap. confident, that grew to become into Bush and the GOP. And, what president lied approximately WMD's? confident, that grew to become into Bush. And, what president lied approximately Iraq being in touch with Al Queda and lied approximately Saddam grew to become into getting uranium from Africa? confident, you're top, that grew to become into Bush and Cheney. do you choose greater? I gotta good deal greater the place that got here from.

2016-10-08 21:32:51 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Being an American citizen has it's responsibilities too! and Not being a terrorist is one of them! I really do not think Uncle SAM cares for my mom's Brownie recipe or my brothers rant over football! let them listen who cares?

2007-07-30 22:33:38 · answer #8 · answered by ThorGirl 4 · 1 3

What constitutes a "suspected terrorist" ?

2007-07-31 04:25:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

get use to it.

2007-07-31 08:07:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers