I've had a hard time commenting on the whole warrantless wiretaps/domestic surveillance issue. Part of the reason is because I don't know how much of an issue it really is. I personally don't want the government monitoring my phone conversations or any numbers I've dialed without a warrant based upon probable cause. If I've done nothing wrong, then why do they need to monitor? But the other reason is that I'm unsure it's illegal.
One thing I really don't like is the President's insistance that it is legal because he says so. The president is implying that Congress needs to step away from the matter and let the man do his job. If there's a debate as to the issue, then it needs to go to Congress to make the determination. And I daresay there is a legitimate question as to the legality. While I'm not going to go into a brief on the issue, I will link to a guest blogger at The Moderate Voice, who does do so, and who cites Supreme Court precedent indicating the president can't order wiretaps even to keep a building from being bombed.
There needs to be an investigation.
1 comment:
I have an issue with this, though personally I could care less about my conversations being monitored. If someone wants an earful about diaper rash by all means listen away. My greater concern is of course the precident and the fact that probable cause is not so hard to come by. Crim Pro wasn't my best subject but it didn't seem like much was needed to get probable cause. What is a reasonably articuable suspicion anyway?
Post a Comment