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

[Perky]

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.

[stray cat]

1. The issue is breaking the law and claiming unrestrained power

[Batgirl]

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.

[Perky]

6. Watch the GOP language they are muting the issue by

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.

[Atman]

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.

[napi21]

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!

[Marie26]

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".

[ProfessorGAC]

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

[bowens43]

4. the wiretaps at issue are NOT legal. n/t

[buddysmellgood]

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.

[wtmusic]

8. Wiretaps aren't really the issue at all

the President broke the law.

[Perky]

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???

[stray cat]

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.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

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.

[Coastie for Truth]

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"

[Dawgs]

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"

[Innocent Smith]

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.

[Avalux]

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.