Can anyone provide me with a case where someone has been subject to an illegal wire tap and?

Question

it took an adverse effect on their life?

I'm not sure why wire tapping is such a hot issue. I can see if it was really having an adverse effect on the innocent population or if there were case after case of the abuse of this authority, but I just don't see that.

I am all for smaller government and the right to privacy... I am also all for the protection of our nation and doing what is necessary to achieve that objective.

Look, they have had the ability to tap any line they want for a really, really long time now. Because authority was granted to do it without a warrant for SUSPECTED FOREIGN TERROSRISTS why is suddenly a huge issue? And people claim.. well they won't follow the rules and they will begin to abuse the authority... my question is... if they aren't going to follow the rules what makes you think they haven't been doing that for years? How does the new authority change anything? And, if they do follow rules, which they do, then only terrorists are affected.

Answer 1

No wiretaps are occurring.

It's electronic surveillance of cell phone conversations with suspected foreign terrorists.

Cell phones are used and disposed of well before any warrant can be obtained.

Perhaps liberals would give President Bush a pass if he failed to prevent another attack. Me, I'd like to see him try his best to avoid having another 9/11 here.

And the Constitution does NOT require a warrant for every search. It has NEVER been interpreted that way, and in fact does not say that. It prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and specifies the conditions under which warrants are issued.

Answer 2

For cases on this subject, check out any book on criminal procedure. There is an entire jurisprudence on the subject of searches conducted without warrants.

This particular form of protection stems from the 4th amendment.

"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."

Wiretapping is not the issue per se, the issue is warrantless wiretapping.

The question you should ask yourself is this: Is there a legitimate reason why a law enforcement agency cannot be troubled to obtain a warrant before they conduct a domestic search?

Note that FISA allows electronic surveillance to occur immediately (without first securing a warrant), by providing law enforcement with a 48 hour window to subsequently obtain the warrant.

Therefore the statute is pretty flexible; it's hard to come up with a sound "necessity" reason why the President should be able to ignore both Congress's mandate and the Constitution.

Anyway, if certain people really are -suspected foreign terrorists-, why do you suppose a warrant would not be granted in that instance?

The unbridled right to spy on anyone residing in the US without requiring any showing of probable cause is too much power for any branch of government to have.

Answer 3

Well comrade, it has an adverse affect on our freedoms. Have you no idea what it means to be an American?

If you were following the news, and believe I know it's hard, as our media is all propaganda all the time, you would know that the Bush gangsters say they can't answer any questions about their wiretapping, because Americans would die. This right here should make you suspect them.

In addition, documents entered into a lawsuit in the 9th circuit PROVE that AT&T is diverting all emails that pass through their servers and all emails are scanned by the govt.

You don't seem to get it that the threat to our nation is from bush and co. Who will protect us from them?

Why don't they want to use the old rules? The old rules said they could get the warrant after they snooped. They don't want a warrant at all - why???? Paper trail.

You are aiding and abetting the enemies of this country with your willingness to give up liberty for security. Franklin is spinning in his grave.

Answer 4

I don't think the people who have been wire tapped illegally know that they've been wire tapped. That's the whole point isn't it? For those people who are suspected terrorists or enemy combatants to not know that they've been wire tapped. The problem occurs when the definition of "suspected terrorist" or "enemy combatant" is so broad and vague that it could include just about anyone who disagrees with this administration. Then somewhere down the line you apply for a government job and you're rejected. Why? Because your name has popped up on a government watchlist for suspected terrorists. Or what if those same broad and vague definitions allow one political party, say the Republicans, to spy on another political party, say oh, I don't know, the Democrats because under those broad definitions they could be deemed "enemy combatants." Crazy, paranoid and far-fetched? Maybe. But when you look at all of the tactics employed by the Bush administration and all of the abuses of power, those fears and far-fetched theories become very practical, very real and very, very frightening.

Answer 5

J. Edgar Hoover did all the time when he was head of the FBI. He wire tapped the conversations of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and many other Civil Right Leaders. These were tax paying citizens who were treated like terrorists, even though they did nothing to hurt the country.

Answer 6

You make some good points, but I don't think the wire taps themselves are a hot issue. When you say "illegal", I'm thinking of "warrantless". That is the issue.

The Bush administration could very easily get legal warrants for wiretaps, but they don't. This leaves them wide open to indiscriminately wiretap anyone they want for any reason, even if the subjects of the wiretaps are not suspected terrorists. There is evidence of abuse with this illegal practice.

If the rest of us are expected to follow the law, then why not the president?

Answer 7

I personally think that most liberals are so concerned about this issue because they are afraid a Democrat will be our next President. They try to talk about how Bush is trampling on their rights with warrantless wiretaps and such,because they know fully in their hearts how little liberal elites truly care about individual rights,and they know that if the precedent is set by Bush that any future Democrat President will definitely abuse that power.

AD

Answer 8

Sure, that's an easy one. There were many illegal wiretaps during the Nixon era. Hoover, during several administrations, conducted so many that it's staggering.

As others have said. Once someone has the power, they will use it against not only "our" enemies, but "their" enemies as well. Power corrupts.

Answer 9

Dude how true. My brother David is a special agent in the FBI and he's been to Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico, Iran... you name it. He goes to Baghdad periodically to help out with terrorist interrogations, and you know what? there are a lot of bad guys out there! He says that the targets they choose for investigation are NOT regular citizens and have to have a seriously hefty rap sheet of suspected red flags before they are considered a threat. If you are an average Joe with a brother in India, the government isn't gonna round you up like the SS and throw you in a truck and deport you to Guantanamo.

Answer 10

It's only a hot issue to the libs because the Patriot Act was instituted by a Republican administration. All us other normal Americans don't have a problem with it because we know the necessity of it.
In answer to your question, Abdul kaweroren qaoekd al Qaeda, it did have an adverse affect on his life. He was innocently trying to smuggle in nuclear devices to kill some more innocent people in America and we were able to stop him from doing it. Poor, unlucky bastar%