Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Arrrrrrrggggghhhhh For the last Friggin Time; Wiretaps are legal!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 08:58 AM
Original message
Arrrrrrrggggghhhhh For the last Friggin Time; Wiretaps are legal!!
The only issue here is Bush ordering wiretaps without warrants because he deemed the law unworkable and untenable.


THe president has said effectively that he has the right to bypass any law he deems fit.


THis is the only issue we should be focused on. Please for the love of God stop trying to pile on this issue slippery slope arguments about police states and whether or not wiretaps or an invasion of privacy.


Lets be clear...THEY ARE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY. That is why warrant are required. The executive at any jurisdictional level has to prove that there is a compelling interest and probable cause before wiretaps can occur,

Folks who want to glom on ad homenin arguments play into the hands of the fascists in the court of public opinion. Please can we have some real focus on the core issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are ,losing the ability to shape this debate when we get bogged down in whether wiretaps are legal. THEY ARE LEGAL and necessary tool for law enforcement and to protect national interest...except when they are not supported by a warrant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. The issue is breaking the law and claiming unrestrained power
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Batgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. I assumed that's what most people mean
when they use the phrase "illegal wiretaps" -- that they're referring to the warrantless, therefore illegal, wiretaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Watch the GOP language they are muting the issue by
Edited on Tue Feb-07-06 09:37 AM by Perky
saying that wiretapping is essential. I don't diagree. But we have to punch back on the warrantless wiretaps. We are foing a lousy job at framing the debate,

ANd there are alot of DUers who are now areguing about wiretaps in general.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Exactly. There are legal wiretaps and illegal ones.
You can have a legal cable box or an illegal one. It doesn't mean cable boxes are inherently illegal.

You can have a legally registered car, or an unregistered car. It doesn't make cars inherently illegal.

This is semantic hair splitting. Everyone knows what is being discussed. Warrantless -- and therefore ILLEGAL -- wiretaps. Not the legal ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. You're right, but there's a second issue that you're ignoring.
If you watched the hearings yesterday, you heard questions about "are you reading mail", "are you taping US citizens".

You're right on your first point that taping is LEGEAL as long as it's done using a warrant.

The part that COULD be illegall though is the taping of "political enemies" or "data mining of the general population "just to see what turns up!

Notice Gonzo wouldn't flatly deny doing any of them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Plus, these probably aren't wiretaps
When you say "wiretaps," people get the image of a single tap of calls from a specific phone. But these are only for international calls, & it probably involves the massive interceptions of thousands, maybe all, int. calls for data mining. The FBI uses wiretaps for a criminal investigation, the NSA uses Echelon, international "switches" & huge supercomputers for "rapid detection". It's a very different program. Try to find an example where Gonzales uses the word "wiretap." He doesn't - he calls it "the program".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. And Another Thing
I regularly hear the excuse that Congress gave him the authority. However, Congress does not have the authority to allow the executive to violate the law. That would require an interpretation of the constitution which is the job of the courts, not Congress.

So, Congress could NOT have granted Silverspoon the authority to spy on people without a warrant. They don't have that power.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. the wiretaps at issue are NOT legal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddysmellgood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. You're subject message is wrong. They are not legal.
The warrant is the only thing that makes them legal. I know you get to that, but in general, wiretaps are illegal. If I do it, I you do it, if the cops do it, it is illegal. If you don't have a warrant, you are breaking the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. Wiretaps aren't really the issue at all
the President broke the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
10. Nearly 200 responses on the Vilsak thread
for him saying what is essentially correct.

We will lose credibility if we allow the GOP to frame the debate as DEMS being against national security.

We eating our own again. Instead of attacking the rise of the fascist presidency.

Vilsak is stating the fact that we have to beable to show the presidnet broke the law and we are pro-national security. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive,

Byt we would rather attack Vilsak for being off-message...WTF is our message anyway???




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Its about breaking the law not being against security
You are absolutely right. The republicans will win this argument if they can paint the issue as for and against security and surveilance or even civil liberties. It is about Bush claiming unrestrained power independent of the courts or congress and against the constitution. It is a never ending war so the war time claim from Bush is a blatant power grab.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
12. 10/22/63 RFK approves wiretaps on MLK.
Abuse of "legal" wiretaps, even with a judge's approval, is open to abuse. Even by the "good" guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. They are perfectly legal
with a search issues by a judicial officer upon probable cause....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
---Fourth Amendment


Bushie doesn't want his fishing expeditions inconvenienced by attempting to show probable cause where there is none.

A good read is Jennifer van Bergen's "The Twilight of Democracy : The Bush Plan for America"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
14. Bush makes the argument himself!!!
Freepers, Tweety, Hannity, and other Republican's only argument is that wiretapping is saving us from another terrorist attack. They win on this argument, and we need to deal with that.

Here's how we can win; get Bush's 'Buffalo' speech played over and over again. They can't defend it because it's indefensible.

Bush is Right!!! "Wiretaps require a warrant"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innocent Smith Donating Member (466 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
16. The Repubs have already shaped the debate
As usual their message is very simple: "We want to eavesdrop on terrorists, perhaps the Dems don't."

Sadly, I get the sense that a large number of Democratic Congresscritters have scattered into the bushes and are hiding there afraid to fight this battle against the Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
17. Perky - please edit your subject line
You should add "with warrants" after the word wiretaps. The way it reads now is not accurate. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 15th 2017, 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC