2007-10-04 18:32:48 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Shall I rephrase the question for the pompous cat ? Did warrantless wire taps exist before the Bush administration?
2007-10-04 18:44:45 · update #1
President Bush did not invent this sort of thing by any means...simple liberal paranoia and propaganda would suggest such.
Gato Dentato...ill this morning are we?...maybe a higher dose of catnip is in order!
2007-10-04 22:18:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
FISA, which is Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, began in 1978 - which authorized warrantless wire taps on suspected foreign agents within the United States with only the cursory notification of the Attourney General.
So yes, warrantless wire taps did exist before Bush and the Patriot Act.
2007-10-04 19:16:07 · answer #2 · answered by theREALtruth.com 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it did. Clinton attempted to start it up, but it was opposed by Republicans and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, prior to being shut down.
This is exactly why Ashcroft would not sign off on it while lying drugged in his bed after surgery, when Gonzo attempted to
talk him into it.
The Patriot Act isn't what started the program. The Patriot Act only gives the Bush Admin the ability to violate your rights, and ignore the consitution, if you are ever SUSPECTED of being a threat to national security, which is being painted with an awful broad brush these days and scattered across several different bills.
2007-10-04 18:59:47 · answer #3 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As you will study in the militia Oath of Allegiance the 1st sentence will answer you question and optimistically make you recognize how stupid you're. I, {insert call right here}, do solemnly swear, (or verify), that i visit assist and safeguard the form of the U. S. against all enemies, distant places and family participants; that i visit undergo genuine faith and allegiance to a similar; US shape Stipulates on modification IV the awesome of the human beings to be look after of their persons, homes, papers, and outcomes, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall no longer be violated, and no Warrants shall subject, yet upon in all probability reason, supported by Oath or confirmation, and relatively describing the region to be searched, and the persons or issues to be seized. till they already have replaced any of those 2 the combat for freedom is right here in Washington. carry the warriors decrease back! The key-word isn't unreasonable, each and every person is conscious that unreasonable must be something and it relatively is suggested like that purposely. the biggest observe is WARRANT, which all of us understand they did no longer subject, and nonetheless do no longer, and those that have been/are issued weren't supported by Oath or confirmation, and relatively describing the region to be searched, and the persons or issues to be seized.
2016-10-10 08:24:11 · answer #4 · answered by staude 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The FISA act was passed in reaction to abuses by Nixon. After that, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that -every- American president broke it on occasion, though it's really so easy to follow you wonder why they wouldn't bother.
But no president until Bush simply declared himself above the law. That's what this is about.
Bush's abuses have set a precedent. It's interesting to note that none of the Democratic candidates has promised that he won't do what Bush did. The biggest irony is that Bush's abuses of the Constitution will make Hillary Clinton the most powerful president in American history! 8^) How d'ya like them apples?
2007-10-04 18:37:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes it did exist.
It should never have existed!
We were provided civil liberties for a reason.
Once you give the government this kind of power over it's people true freedom and democracy is gone!
I don't care under which President this infringement of the constitution began but I will always remember the President who ends it!
There will one day be a President of great wisdom who understands the importance of upholding the constitution!
2007-10-04 18:38:10 · answer #6 · answered by Kelly B 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Robert Kennedy had secret/illegal wire taps on Dr. King under President Johnson.
2007-10-04 18:51:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It wasn't the patriot act that authorized warrantless wiretaps Sparky. Bush did it all by his lonesome and with a little help from Gonzo the Torturer Apologist.
*Guess what? You don't get to pick the form of the answers you want little control freak. Lol!
2007-10-04 18:40:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
it existed, but it was suppose to have oversight by a special judicial panel...
separation of powers and no one man being able to do what ever he wants however he wants with no repercussions...
now... did this always happen... maybe not... but I think it could have caused quite a stir if someone wanted too...
Imagine this... Hillary Clinton with no oversight and the patiot act laws? NOT ONE CONSERVATIVE with even the ability to look at what she's doing?
do you see anything wrong with that?
do you trust her with that kind of power?
2007-10-04 18:36:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They did, but not to the unrestrained extent now legalised under the Act. Big Brother is watching you.........
2007-10-04 18:37:16 · answer #10 · answered by janniel 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋