Don't just ask whether it was illegal, ask why he didn't get a warrant.

[jobycom]

A FISA warrant takes a couple of hours to get. It's not much of an inconvenience. Bush and his advisors clearly knew it was illegal. Why would they take the risk? Either they are just too arrogant to care, or they were hiding something bigger.

Like, who were they spying on? Kerry? Bill and Hillary Clinton? Bono? Cat Stevens? Sean Penn? Us? Why did they believe they couldn't get a warrant for the wiretap?

I'd love to hear that answer.

[emulatorloo]

1. kick and nominating n/t

[yellowdogmi]

9. Valid Questions

I would guess they think they are above the law
:mad:

[chelaque liberal]

2. You're right, that is the important question.

[mattclearing]

3. More likely, it is all of us.

I think they were spying on everyone in an echelon-type electronic monitoring system.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Actually, the warrants can be issued retroactively.

Because there is no "time is of the essence" hurdle, BushCo's lack of warrants can only mean they were spying on political rivals and ordinary Americans and they knew the court would never give them permission. They simply didn't ask because they knew they would be denied.

[jobycom]

8. I wonder if we are selling Bush short

Think of the business advantage BushCo could gain by wiretapping business competitors of Halliburton. Or to gain stock tips. I wouldn't rule out pure old fashioned corruption.

[TheFarseer]

5. They could at least get a warrant after the fact

If they have Osama on the line, I don't expect them to hang up. Although, that begs the question, how did they get Osama on the line without an illegal wiretap in the first place???? Maybe I just don't understand wiretaps.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. Together with the detect/monitor bullcrap, a key question indeed

Time to do some reframing on these traitors.

:thumbsup: & rec'd

[BR_Parkway]

7. They could even go afterwards to get the warrant, they have up to

3 days.

Why didn't they want the judge to know who they were eavesdropping on?

[ladjf]

10. I heard a new reporter today in an interview with Cheney ask

"Why did Bush circumvent the FISA when the order could have been acquired retroactively"? (paraphrase)


In face of that direct question, Cheney replied that they had to defend lives. Huh? That wasn't the question.

This scenario of evasive answers has happened repeatedly in the media for the past two days. It's as though the part about the FISA order was not even mentioned. Amazing!


OK, here's the question. "Why was it safer to do the wiretaps without the FISA order even though the time element was identical.?" Or to put in another way, "Was there something about giving the target information to the FISA court that jeopardized safety?"

[StefanX]

11. Bingo!

That secret court has authorized 19,000 warrants -- and turned down only four.

And it usually takes only a matter of hours.

So if Bush was really trying to "protect us" from the terrorists with those taps -- he would have gotten them openly.

Therefore, we can only conclude that he was REALLY embarrassed about the wiretaps he was requesting.

[darkstar]

12. I think it's b/c they knew they couldn't establish probable cause,

even at the most likely lowered "but they may be terrorists" threshold, w/ FISA judges. They felt like the FISA thing didn't allow them to cast the net wide enough vis a vis the threat,and that's why they circumvented the law.

[jobycom]

13. The case would have to be very flimsy, then

FISA warrants are almost routine, if they can make any case at all that they need the wire tap. So either we are talking about very flimsy evidence, as in non-existent, or they were wiretapping people they knew they shouldn't be.

The whole point of FISA, or of search warrants of any kind, is so that someone objective can look at the case and decide whether it is worth violating someone's rights over. It is also to prevent corruption, as in some president wire-tapping an opponent or even seeking an edge in a business venture. The point of FISA is so that the president has to inform someone objective. He's forbidden from doing it on his own specifically to protect against abuse of power, as much as to protect the rights of suspects.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. Exactly! Had he tried to get the warrant, it would have been legal

Can he guarantee that there was no eavesdropping on political opponents...particularly those who were running against him in 2004???

[gkhouston]

15. wouldn't it be ironic if that's what brings Bush down?

Eavesdropping on political opponents?? Learn much from history, guys?

[Just Me]

16. Oh, I have no doubt they have much to hide.

And, they will do everything in their power to continue to engage in that concealment.