It’s time for another poll of you, our constant readers. You’ve had time to digest your thoughts and other’s commentary on the Bush administration setting up wiretapping without court approval. Does the “war on terror” justify any abridgement of our privacy or is the potential for abuse too great to allow this to continue?
A couple of points to consider in your answer. Wiretapping has been going on for a long time. It’s nothing new. Robert F Cringely’s column this week has some interesting items in that area. What is new is the institutionalization of potentially unbounded wiretaps. Is this a good thing? Remember the old saw about absolute power’s corrupting influence.
If literally every wiretap asked for under the old laws got court approval, even retroactively, why not stick with that route? We have to take Bush and Co. at their word the taps will be limited. What exactly does that mean? Limited to only every Muslim in this country might fall into that description. Is that kind of usage why they don’t want anyone to see what they are doing?
I want the terrorists stopped. I want my freedoms protected. Are these two desires impossible to have in this dangerous world? Must we turn over the keys to our freedoms to an administration which has shown a disdain for the truth in other areas? Will they return them when the threat is over? Will it ever be declared over or have we entered Orwell’s world of continual warefare that requires permanent abridgement of our cherished freedoms?
Use your freedom of expression to tell us what you think, but don’t blame us if the government decides to tap your phone as a result.
> How can you convict a man for losing money on
> a real estate development deal or
> getting a little extra at the office?
How many times are people going to repeat this tripe? Clinton was impeached for LYING TO THE GRAND JURY. We can talk all we want about whether they *should* have asked him questions about getting a blow job in the White House. But at the end of day, when he was asked, under oath, by the Grand Jury whether he had sex with Lewensky he lied.
Uh, Thomas — Clinton was acquitted of the charges. Remember?
I do remember. He was impeached (charged) by the House and acquitted by Senate because of perjury not because he got a blow job in the White House.
I get what you’re saying, Thomas, but take a look at your first comment (#31). The commenter that you were replying to was talking about convicting (…How can you convict a man for…), and your reply was about impeaching. You have confused apples and oranges in the exact same way that you chastised Eideard for.
Tripe? I’ll say.
Brad,
First, it is clear that garym’s original comment was meant to convey his opinion that Clinton was wrongly impeached by the House because he got a blow job in the White House. This is notion is false. He was charged with lying. Otherwise, using your interpretation, garym’s comment makes no sense since Clinton was not convicted.
Second, Eideard comment clearly implied that he assumed that impeached meant that Clinton was removed from office. If you note this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeached), impeachment merely means that charges are brought against someone in office not that they are necessarily removed from office. Clinton *was* impeached.
Third, Clinton is entirely off topic and it was my mistake from even commenting on the garym’s ridiculous notion that Clinton was impeached because he got a blow job in the White House. Although tired of hearing this false accusation from the left, it merely detracts from the topic at hand.
A few years ago I heard Allistaire Cooke read some words on his radio program that he said was a letter by a French businessman during WWII, who had just escaped to Britain from his villa in rural France ahead of the approaching Wehrmacht:
“…If you believe in peace over freedom, you will lose. If you believe in wealth and comfort instead of freedom, you will lose.”
So, they lost.
Thomas – I totally understand your position here. When it comes to the outrageous and immoral witch hunt mounted against Bill Clinton which ultimately resulted in his being wrongly accused of an impeachable offense, the far right invariably forgets that Clinton was acquitted of the charge. Since he was acquitted, it is completely wrong to say that “…at the end of day, when he was asked, under oath, by the Grand Jury whether he had sex with Lewensky he lied.” If you’re going to make false claims like this one, don’t be surprised if people who don’t share your rightwing views call bullshit.
Just as the monitoring of speech has been shown to change behavior, the fact that law enforcement faces judicial review has to limit the circumstances that they will request the warrants.
Definately against this. To me this is a very obvious violation of the Search and Seizure clause of the Constitition.
Before you impeach Bush for “illegal” wiretaps, maybe we should wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. I would be willing to bet long odds that whichever way they rule, it will not be unanimous.
I don’t like the idea of warrant-less wiretaps. I also don’t like the idea terrorists blowing up buildings (or cities if Iran gets the bomb). So how do we balance security and freedom?
For starters, FISA needs to be updated to reflect our current technology and threat. FISA was primarily directed at espionage or sabotage by agents of foreign governments. Fighting terrorist requires different tools and methods than one would normally use against a Soviet spy.
So Congress needs to amend FISA; possibly even allowing greater flexibility for wiretaps on potential terrorist communication. BUT it needs to address the specific authority the President has in dealing with wiretaps. Make it very clear by specifically addressing what surveillance tools are available for use on whom, which require warrants, and which do not. Make that section applicable to the “War on Terror” so that the nebulous war powers of the President are clearly delineated for this specific (and unending) war.
I’d be interested in everyone’s comments on a point I made when i posted this poll. Specifically, “We have to take Bush and Co. at their word the taps will be limited. What exactly does that mean? Limited to only every Muslim in this country might fall into that description.”
Let’s assume the courts rule what Bush is doing is legal in principle. What, if any, are the limits? Are there any? Are religious, racial and other profiling permissible?
Your question touches on a broader question related to the general permissibility and oversight of any type of surveillance. Requiring a warrant for surveillance and not wiretapping or the other way around seems to be an arbitrary distinction whose lines have already gotten blurred in the Internet age. The common thread is that you are being watched by government officials. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution *specifically* about governmental surveillance nor privacy.
AB CD – Again you are just showing just how ignorant you are.
a) Clinton was impeached. He was the second president in the history of the USA that was impeached. When a president is impeachead, it means that he is being brought to trial, not that he is removed. I repeat… Clinton was impeached.
b) Clinton repeatedly tried to confront the Al-Qaida threat, bombing Bin-Laden and missing. But try he did. T
c) The Sudan thing is like so many of the items that are being bandied around that are utterly baseless and being used to somehow provide some defense to the Bush administration. – Atta meetings with Iraqi secret agents – WMD threat 20 minute deployment – it’s Clinton’ s fault for not doing more- and the biggest lie of all: “This was a fight for freedom and democracy in the Middle East since the beginnning”.
AB CD – at this point, believing that this adminstration is good and has been good for this country is becoming evidence of a mental deficiency of some sort, since it has been nothing but a series of failures, deceptions, outright lies, and self serving policies. Even the so called achievement of the economy is a lie, being sustained by the most massive growth in public debt in the history of America.
Thomas
Get your facts straight. The FBI went after Wen. They charged him. After spending much time in solitary confinement, the Judge apologized to Wen because the Government had screwed up the case so badly. All their charges were thrown out as unfounded. He plead guilty to a very minor charge which had more to do with his sloppy habits then breaking National Security. He copied some secret material he was working on to an unsecured computer to have better access to it. The computer never left the building.
Moussari was never put before FISA. He was detained on an Immigration violation. Only after 9/11 did he become a suspect as a terrorist. Where did you get this stuff?
Almost all Constitutional scholars agree that the President does NOT have the authority for unfettered actions under the constitution. Congress did not declare war. When the Patriot Act was considered by Congress, Bush asked for unfettered wiretapping, but Congress denied him. Congress was not consulted by the Administration, a very few select leaders were told portions of the acts but were told so under top level secrecy so they could not divulge the information EVEN TO ANOTHER ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE.
Even during war time, the administration must obey the law. The 4th amendment holds true that search warrants require judicial approval. Nothing in the Constitution allows the President to disregard ANY part of the Constitution to further any aim. The only exception to this would be when Martial Law has been declared, and it hasn’t been.
It is amazing how arrogant one can become when you have people around who will take a bullet for you. That inflation started back in the early 80s. We payed for it, we created it. Insulated, shielded, sequestered, survailed, it all brings on a kind of madness. It is no wonder George W. believes warrantless search is right and proper, he has been subject to it for at least 25yrs. I feel bad that he could not go out shopping for Christmas gifts; though if he really wanted to he should have, it was his right. We would all be mad living like that. The greatest check the President has is us, we are a more true voice of his madness, than his diplomatic protocol allows. Does the president resent his lack of freedom so much that he is willing to put us all in the same position?
The kind of arrogance I would have expected of a former Texas Governor would have been like a scene out of a western. After 911 the Prez should have called out Binny Boy and made it personal. Pitting Curious George’s Christian Faith against Bin Laughable’s Islamic Faith, like an old fashioned gun fight or dual to the death. Then we could also have had the answer to “my god is better than your god.” This all is just a lame puppet show.
No to All warrantless searches. Presidential Powers should not supersede the constitution nor contramand the constitution; PP were designed to protect and defend the constitution not be used to negate it.
The presidents job is to enforce the law, not interpret it, that is the judiciaries roll. The president can propose law, or changes to a law, but the house and senate decide what Bills pass go, if the president does not like it, veto, back to congress to see whether the rest of America wants it by majority rule, or to make changes. This has worked for us for 230yrs.
Mr. President you have been getting some bad advice.