Wiretaping Americans is Important and Necessary

[Ravenseye]

You keep seeing on the news that the wiretap is vital in the war on terror. They are playing this as about whether or not wiretapping itself is right or wrong. That's what the Republicans want the issue to be, but that's not it. Americans have always been accepting of domestic spying. The FBI has used wiretaps to capture murderers, organized crime and mob bosses, drug dealers, and more. Nobody questions those, because they all have warrants attached to them. We're fine with surveillance, as long as there is an independent court which provides the warrants on a case by case basis.

Same thing here. Bush having people spy on Americans isn't the issue. The issue is that the law specifically states that they need to get a warrant in order to spy on us. Bush says that sometimes you don't have time to get the warrant and need to act fast. This is why for these cases the law allows you to do a wiretap and get the warrant AFTER the fact. Bush simply didn't do that. He had American's spied on, and even though he had weeks after these taps to get a warrant, he didn't have the people do it. Nobody knows who was spied upon, nobody knows what they're doing. There is Zero oversight.

THAT is the problem.

Bush's only other response to that is that the Patriot Act gives him the authority to do 'whatever is necessary to prosecute terrorism', which is further proof that the Patriot ACt is a bad thing. What if he feels that rounding up all Arab Americans is necessary to prosecute the war on terrorism? Can he do that too? The Patriot ACt says he can do whatever is necessary. If it's ok for wiretaps is it ok for just holding thousands, or even millions of Americans in prisons with no charges, or even evidence?

Don't let them spin the argument again. Democrats are not against wiretaping. We're against breaking the law, and wiretapping people without warrants. Sure it's more subtle, but we can't keep falling into the Republican traps.

[sui generis]

1. Let's just start with this:

1. If the program is effective, prove it. Name one damn terrorist plot you have foiled with a wiretap, and John McCain just shut your pie-hole. Lack of evidence is not evidence that this technique works. That's what metrics are for. Give me ONE metric.

2. Don't you think that if I were to plan to BOMB AN AIRPORT, I would perhaps not use the word BOMB THE AIRPORT in English, on the telephone, or even by gargling in swahili using a substitution cypher.

These people are FUCKING IDIOTS and LIARS. The department of homeland security has no idea where to even begin to look for "terrorists" so it's going to conveniently turn people like you and me into terrorists to justify the OMB spend on their annual budgets.

I am absolutely certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that if they had been able to avert a terrorist incident it would have been in the news 24/7 for a whole freaking year.

These people aren't even GOOD liars, and yet there are always stupid people who won't question the tiniest iota of dissonance. John McCain, you're just a stooge.

[Ravenseye]

2. I think that misses the point

If the program is effective, why not get warrants? This is in essence a secret court, with secret warrants. It's not like the people would ever know the warrants were on them. By trying to go around that via a very loose wording in the Patriot Act the President is breaking the law and trying to gain more executive power.

Getting a metric from this particular program isn't even the issue. The issue isn't whether or not it worked, the issue is that we have no idea how many people he's illegally wiretapped. He broke the law. Period.

What if he were to show you that they wiretapped a group in Virginia, which led to them being apprehended with two dump trucks full of explosives? Would that assuage you? What if at the same time he didn't mention the thousands of others they had wiretapped without warrants, including political enemies? Would that one metric of success be fine?

The problem is not wiretapping, it's doing so without any oversight. Period. I don't want to hear about any successes, because there very well could be. But once success witha warrantless wiretap isn't the problem. It's with having no idea who else he's wiretapping and why.

That's why it's illegal.

[sui generis]

3. oh boy do I disagree

You have some good points, but the point of my rhetoric is conversational. Every time we hear a talking head say it's okay because we haven't had any terror attacks since 9-11, THEY miss the point.

The point is, if we actually ever had averted a terror attack, the media and this administration would be beating us over the head with it day and night.

The fact that they haven't is an indicator wiretaps with or without warrants aren't producing the results they claim.

I think you were arguing with yourself on some of those points - I don't disagree with you on any of the principles involved. I was just going for the throat. When I hear Senator McCain say "see it works" then the issue MOST CERTAINLY is "whether or not it worked".

[Ravenseye]

4. I couldn't disagree more

The issue has nothing to do with whether wiretaps work.

Remember the old CIA adage, you know their failures, but not their successes. I think some of that is involved.

Yet it doesn't matter. If they had done a million wiretaps over the past 4 years and not had any successes, there'd be no issue with them, as long as they had gone to the court DEDICATED to these warrants, and gotten one, even after the fact. If they had done that there'd be no issue here.

The issue is that they are doing this wiretapping WITH NO OVERSIGHT. Success, or failure, doesn't matter. They broke the law. Period. End of story.

Is it ok to break the law if you succeed once out of a hundred attempts?

No, I just totally disagree with you. The issue is them once again abusing their authority and breaking the law. Wiretaps work, they are good, they help protect us from criminals and terrorists...Just get a warrant.

What you're saying is that you'd support those provisions in the patriot act which allow the government to break into my house without even telling me, go through my stuff, my computer, without a warrant, and without letting me know they were here....as long as they can prove that they were successfull just once doing so. Is that it?

[sui generis]

5. sorry - I think we're talking past each other.

"Remember the old CIA adage, you know their failures, but not their successes"
This is horseshit for the stupid natives. Smoke and mirrors. We most certainly DO know their successes, and you would do yourself a better service to practice a little less naivete.

You're putting words in my mouth. You are on a soapbox about warrants and not really reading WHAT I'm saying. You're defining the issue for me, then telling me "what you're saying is" and this is not a good form of argument, especially when you've read my comments as completely wrong as you have.

You make an assertion "wiretaps work, they are good" THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. You can't prove that they do, and if you could I'm certain that you would. That is EXACTLY my point. You're just parrotting their lines and expecting me to go along with your assertion, ironically.

I don't have any bigger point actually. I'm not defending legality or illegality, warrants versus non warrants or any of the other crap you claim I'm saying. You have it from me, in direct speech, live and in person.

And on that point, in your world all they have to do is prove that it WAS legal for it to be perfectly alright with you, and believe me they're not going to try. They are going to assert that it was legal TO THEIR BASE, and their base will buy it because it comes from unquestionable authority in defense of their shivering ass safety, because that's all that matters to them.

Wiretaps. Let's discuss. You use software to key into aural concordance algorithms looking for words like BOMB and ANTHRAX. Don't you think that people who really ARE involved in that stuff are just a tiny bit more cautious? I can assure you that anyone who has anything to worry about the law in this day and age (besides petty narcotics trafficking) does not discuss details on the phone, or at least not using terms, context or phrasing that a sniffer could pick up.

[Ravenseye]

6. Ok let me try and rephrase

I'm sorry if you feel I was putting words in your mouth. It was more of a rhetorical "Are you really saying this?" type of question because that's what it sounded like. I've re-read this thread and what you've written to see where the disconnect is.

Wiretaps work. I still stand by this. I'm talking in a general sense here, not about these specific Bush ordered wiretaps. Wiretaps, obtained legally through the courts via warrants, have helped law enforcement on numerous occasions. Sure plenty of times it doesn't get anything, when the people aren't dumb enough to have conversations over the phone, but other times it does work. Do I need to prove that wiretaps work? Do I really need to link to this AP article or that UPI report about a mob boss, or a drug dealer, or whatever whose prosecution was helped by wiretaps?

As far as them having to prove that it was legal for them to do their wiretaps, they're already doing that. That's why they're pulling out the patriot act, and the congressional resolution. They know that they need a legal cover, because they've broken the law in a big way. They can flim flam it all they want, but they're not going to prove to me they didn't break the law, unless they can show me where it says it's legal for them to do warrantless wiretaps on american citizens. The law says they NEED warrants, and no obtuse wording in a congressional resolution gets to overturn whatever law they like.