Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Just curious what ya'll think.
Bush wiretap.
- Thread starter Bustem' Down
- Start date
ylexot
Super Genius
Well, I voted "no" because, given the very limited information, I think the wiretaps were the right thing to do. However, the big question is did he do it in a legal way? My answer to that is I have no friggin clue. We just don't have enough information to know one way or another.
K
Kain99
Guest
Spy on everyone... Protect my family.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
That's how I feel. There's not enough info being given out about it. I say that as long as he can show that the people being tapped have connections or whatever, then go for it. I'm like you, I should have put a "Yes-No" catagory.ylexot said:
My opinion is that the wire tapping was not wrong and, even if it is found to have been illegal, I would rather see the law changed than let terrorists and criminals run amok.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I'm ok as long as he doesn't tap mine. But I'm also a devote hypocrite. 
There ya go. He can tap my phone anytime he wants.Mikeinsmd said:Yanno what?? If you aren't doing anything illegal or have given Uncle Sam reason to suspect ya for anything, what do ya care???? Sheesh!!! Tap away W!!! Keep my ass alive and safe from the terrorists!!
ylexot
Super Genius
The point is that there is supposed to be oversight from someone outside of the President's chain of command (the judicial branch) to prevent him from doing something that he shouldn't be doing (i.e. spying on political opponents). I'm guessing that one of two things will happen. The first possibility (IMO) is that it may be found that everything was done in accordance with the law. The second possibility (IMO) is that they will find that he was spying on the right people for good reason, but he didn't do it in the proper way (i.e. notifying the FISA court). In this case, I think they'll say "you did the right thing, but did it the wrong way...do it the right way next time" and we'll go on with our lives.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Right, there should be oversight from outside the white house. Not that I think that Bush would abuse the power, but who knows what ambitions future presidents may have. 50 years down the road, we might elect a tool into office like the Germans did with Hitler who would abuse it if there were no checks and balances for it.ylexot said:
You mean like pulling the FBI files of your enemies or people you want to have something on? I was unaware that any government body had jursidiction over that.ylexot said:
tjstalcup
addicted to research
Evidence now shows that any communication that involved going out of the United States was recorded. This means everytime my wife called her brother in England, the call was recorded. If the computers catch certain catch phrases, such as "bomb" "target" "strike" or "bush", an actual human goes back and listens to the entire conversation to be sure it's not a threat to national security.
Now as far as the legality, early indications point that this program was not legal, only because it didn't follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, however this is only a small legality.
If this was an issue of National Security, the biggest issue would be the person in the White House who leaked this program. Once they leaked it to the New York Times, the Administration contacted the New York Times and asked them to sit on the story, as it concerned details that could threaten National Security. A year later the New York Times finally released the story, amidst 5 other stories concerning the government, NSA, FBI and CIA perpetrating illegal search and seizures on it's own people, not just arabs, but also on whites, blacks and latinos.
Scary to think what's next. All to prevent "the tear-or-rists!"
Now as far as the legality, early indications point that this program was not legal, only because it didn't follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, however this is only a small legality.
If this was an issue of National Security, the biggest issue would be the person in the White House who leaked this program. Once they leaked it to the New York Times, the Administration contacted the New York Times and asked them to sit on the story, as it concerned details that could threaten National Security. A year later the New York Times finally released the story, amidst 5 other stories concerning the government, NSA, FBI and CIA perpetrating illegal search and seizures on it's own people, not just arabs, but also on whites, blacks and latinos.
Scary to think what's next. All to prevent "the tear-or-rists!"
I would bet cash that the leak came from a certain Democrat who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee.tjstalcup said:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
What confuses me is is it really illegal to wire tap, or is it just that information from wire taps cannot be admitted as evidence at trial? I can't remember anything that specifically prohibits the government from wiretapping anyone, just that they can't use the information collected for prosecution in court.
The issue that has the civil liberties folks upset is the branching of the wiretaps. Say that person A is an Al Qaeda leader, who calls person B who is an Al Qaeda operative in Washington, DC. That call gets tapped, but so does every call that person B makes. Then person B calls person C, who's his neighbor in Washington DC and who has nothing to do with anything, but now person C's phone calls are monitored, along with the calls of people he calls, and on and on and on.
The issue that has the civil liberties folks upset is the branching of the wiretaps. Say that person A is an Al Qaeda leader, who calls person B who is an Al Qaeda operative in Washington, DC. That call gets tapped, but so does every call that person B makes. Then person B calls person C, who's his neighbor in Washington DC and who has nothing to do with anything, but now person C's phone calls are monitored, along with the calls of people he calls, and on and on and on.
