Tap This
I'm baffled by people defending the wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant. Last night it was some people I know very well, like, and respect as intelligent individuals, so I know it's not just a bunch of crazies.
My main question about the wiretaps Bush authorized has still not been answered though and I posed it again last night. A secret court exists that can quickly review warrant requests for the wiretaps. In fact they can retroactively issue the warrant. Under existing law, the NSA can wiretap someone, then still have 72 hours to request approval from the secret court. Given that fact, why did Bush authorize wiretaps without a warrant? I have seen nothing from defenders of this practice to explain it. If anyone actually reads this entry and knows why, tell me. The people I spoke to last night offered no explanation when I asked. They just said that they don't think getting a warrant or not really matters. The important part is to catch the terrorists.
What?! With all due respect, that's crazy talk. I want to catch the terrorists too, but I'm also concerned about the rights of innocent Americans. Our government has been designed with a system of checks and balances to curb abuse by those in power and protect our freedoms. The Bush administrations unwillingness to use the process that's already in place makes me wonder what they're hiding. Warrants are an important check on the power of law enforcement and in this case the executive branch. For example, let's say someone in power wants information on a political opponent. They have some NSA friends and they order the wiretap. If a warrant is required though, it increases the oversight of such activities and makes it more difficult to use in this and other improper manners. I suppose it's still possible to abuse the system, but it's harder because there's judicial oversight.
Where does it end? If this warrantless wiretapping is acceptable, where do we draw the line? How many US citizens are spied on by our government and for what reasons? How do we ensure that the system is not abused? How can anyone think this practice is okay? People saying the warrants don't matter are putting an awful lot of blind trust in our government. It's trust that our Founders didn't have.
Big Brother is watching.
My main question about the wiretaps Bush authorized has still not been answered though and I posed it again last night. A secret court exists that can quickly review warrant requests for the wiretaps. In fact they can retroactively issue the warrant. Under existing law, the NSA can wiretap someone, then still have 72 hours to request approval from the secret court. Given that fact, why did Bush authorize wiretaps without a warrant? I have seen nothing from defenders of this practice to explain it. If anyone actually reads this entry and knows why, tell me. The people I spoke to last night offered no explanation when I asked. They just said that they don't think getting a warrant or not really matters. The important part is to catch the terrorists.
What?! With all due respect, that's crazy talk. I want to catch the terrorists too, but I'm also concerned about the rights of innocent Americans. Our government has been designed with a system of checks and balances to curb abuse by those in power and protect our freedoms. The Bush administrations unwillingness to use the process that's already in place makes me wonder what they're hiding. Warrants are an important check on the power of law enforcement and in this case the executive branch. For example, let's say someone in power wants information on a political opponent. They have some NSA friends and they order the wiretap. If a warrant is required though, it increases the oversight of such activities and makes it more difficult to use in this and other improper manners. I suppose it's still possible to abuse the system, but it's harder because there's judicial oversight.
Where does it end? If this warrantless wiretapping is acceptable, where do we draw the line? How many US citizens are spied on by our government and for what reasons? How do we ensure that the system is not abused? How can anyone think this practice is okay? People saying the warrants don't matter are putting an awful lot of blind trust in our government. It's trust that our Founders didn't have.
Big Brother is watching.
posted by Patrick at
10:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home