The Wiretaps - what is the Core Problem?

[bryant69]

Poll question: The Wiretaps - what is the Core Problem?

What is the core problem in President Bush's Wiretaps. Is it that peoples right to privacy was violated? Or was it the power grab by the President?

Or was it something else?

I do want to underline that both of these issues are important aspects of the case; voting that the Right to Privacy is core doesn't mean you think that the Power Grab is A-OK. But if you are crafting an argument, which of the two (or others) do you lead off with?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MrModerate]

1. This guy, who apparently thinks he was appointed by god . . .

Will stop at nothing to achieve his ends. He is a sociopath abetted by a coterie of sociopaths. He's shredding the traditional limitations on presidential power that have heretofore prevented the emergence of an American Mussolini. While it's unlikely that he himself could make himself a dictator (even though he has joked about doing so!), he's making it much more likely that some other demagogue down the road will be able to.

The invasion of privacy issue is more of a symptom than a problem in and of itself.

[OnionPatch]

2. The core issue to me is

the shredding of the automatic checks and balances that our forefathers were very careful to construct. In short, I would not have as much problem at all if warrants were obtained from the judiciary.

[bryant69]

4. That's kind of where I am at too

These sorts of wiretaps may very well be justified in some cases; but going around the system means that there is no way for us to know.

[OnionPatch]

8. Right, we have no way of knowing

and no other branch of our government has oversight.

I can think of only one reason why he couldn't be bothered to get warrents, especially since they can be obtained AFTER the fact; He's spying on his political enemies and that undermines our democracy.

Not good, not good at all.

[Ready4Change]

3. Other: Flagrant Violation of the law.

There were methods by which this could have been done legally.

Instead, Bush chose a route that was in direct violation of the law. It purely evades our governments system of checks and balances, and puts the Executive Branch in a position wherein it operates with no oversight whatsoever.

Yes, this was a power grab. Yes, it is a direct violation of the our nations Constitution. But, most critically, it is a blatantly CRIMINAL act.

[orwell]

6. I agree...

...that is why I voted "other." He knowingly violated the law, abrogating both the 4th amendment (which he swore to uphold) and the FISA law.

This is clearly impeachable.

[Blutodog]

5. Just trust me!

Bu$h seems to think the law doesn't apply to him. But whose surprised here's a guy that has broken or dodged the law his whole life with the help of those around him.

[Canuckistanian]

7. It's not knowing what it's being used for

If, tomorrow, the Chimperor decides he doesn't like what some columnist wrote or what some politician said, what would prevent the bastard from spying on them? Nothing. We wouldn't know. Nobody would know, except the corrupt circle in the administration.

At least with a court that can say NO, the wiretap is jusitfied, legally and morally. Probable cause would have to be proven, not the whims of a questionably-elected die-hard idealogue whom we KNOW would use it for questionable political purposes.

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. Illegal Search and Seizure

It is explicitely stated unlike the right to privacy which has been implicitely created by the judiciary. There is a major difference in terms of the legal significance attached to each.