Why would the government have a need for WARRANTLESS wiretaps?

Question

Espescially when you can get warrants retroactively. That means that if there is an urgent need to tap, you can go ahead and do it as long as you file the papers at a later time.
There are judges who are very agreeable to those who would like a warrant.
The only thing I can think of is that they are tapping ALOT of phones indiscriminantly and don't want to do the paperwork for a massive ammount of taps.

The instances in which you would need a retroactive warrant are rare as well John K.

Espress, law enforcement chooses the judge for a warrant, it's not like they are madated to go through some "liberal activist judge" who will shut them down.

Tommy G, say it with me
ret ro act ive
warr ants
I knew you could do it!

Answer 1

retroactive doesn't guarantee it will be approved, in fact it is quite the opposite. Often the approval is denied based on circumstance and defense lawyers.
Sometimes time is crucial, so any delay is critical.

Answer 2

SO they don't have to justify a need at any time or any place.
They can just listen to conversations for any reason even if it is politicial rather than for security.
The problem with that program, wasn't really the warrantless wiretaps, but the lack of oversite on the program. It had NONE, and the Bush admin fought having oversite, because they were obviously listening to more conversations than just people talking to terrorist suspects, over-seas..

If a conversation is going on right now, that security forces feel they need to listen to to prevent a terrorist attack, they can listen in, for 72 hours without a warrant according to FISA. IF a conversation is 72 hours long, then obviously enough evidence would have been collected for a warrant.


"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," is the first step of acceptance of centralization of power.
The jews stacked on train cars during The Holocaust had nothing to hide or fear until all of their rights were gone, and centralization of power was completed.

Answer 3

That's pretty much what the government is doing now. But during a time frame their was some clarifications that needed to be made in certain laws that made it difficult to acquire a retroactive warrent. Since then, the laws have been fixed and wiretapping is used with a retroactive warrent in some cases. Retroactive warrents aren't always needed. In fact, spy agencies can get warrents almost instantaneously now, in certain cases.

Answer 4

I agree. It seems odd that even after the tapping has started, in some instances completed, all they have to do is tell a judge that they did it. Yet, this Administration doesn't want to do that. What are they trying to hide? Are they up to no good? The failure or desire not to inform a judge before or after a wire tap certainly makes one suspicious. You know, even if the wire taps are all above board and are legit as they claim, the mere fact that they are bucking the part that requires infomring a judge makes it seem very unethical and sneaky.

Answer 5

If you are not placing telephone calls to suspected terrorists overseas, you have nothing to be afraid of. Do you know any one who has had their phone line tapped? Likely not.

It works like this, if a call is placed to a suspected know terrorist location, the call is monitored for key words. Examples, bomb, kill, hijack, breach, will of Allah, etc.

The wire taps have been effective in uncovering world wide terrorist plots. Now if these plots were not uncovered, some would then complain "why isn't the govt doing anything?" Now is time better spent chasing possible plots, or jumping through hoops filing papers?

Answer 6

Think about it this way. If you were the CIA and you knew a phone call was going on right now between Osama Bin Laden and some one here in the USA, would you want to listen in right then and prevent a disaster from happening? or would you take the time to go visit a judge present your case and get it approved, by the time you get back the call is over and the golden gate bridge is destroyed?

Um... I prefer to give up my right to be heard on the phone since I don’t do anything illegal to save the lives of another 3000 of my fellow Americans.

Also to your point about the Judges approving warrents at a later time, that could not happen in the world of intel, that is the reason they had to make an executive order to surpass the FICA Court. By law thay had to see every case before it was filed for warrent.

Answer 7

Tap away...You are foolish to think you have any privacy...And your cries of justice not being served and peoples rights being lost are backwards. We are under attack constantly...and some (like you) look a lot (like them). If I had a choice between hindering my government and helping it, I would help. Cause if the other guys win your legal mumbo jumbo will surely become irrelavent.

Answer 8

There is another--and more dangerous--motive: to establish the precedent that the president can place himself above the law and the Cosntituution and assume dictatorial powers at will.

Don't kid yourself--that is the real motive. Every dictatorship in history has begun with jsut such strategems. And such demands for power are NEVER, in the long run, shown to be for anything but that purpose.

Answer 9

the Canadian government doesnt need a warrant to put microphones in your house. maybe thats where the idea came from

Answer 10

They don't. People are trading freedom for security, fools that they are. Welcome to yet another footnote in our continuing slide towards the land of Big Brother.

Remember, the 2nd amendment is there in case the politicians ignore the others.