do u think Bush has a right to wiretap Amercians ?
105967
not without a warrant, 4th ammendment:\n\nThe 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.
414830
Do they have a right to do it?  ABSOLUTELY.\n\nDoes it piss me off?  ABSOLUTLEY\n\nWill they get my help by doing this BS?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.
360681
IF it is done legally, then no.  As long as the spying is consistant with Constitutional protections against unwarrented intrusions into my private life, then I won't worry.  Let the government agencies get warrents first.
1138420
4th Amendment-"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."\n\nSome would say yes because of the Domestic Wiretapping issue
155431
No. Just because the Democrats did it to the Japanese in WWII doesn't mean it is right. \n\nThe right thing to do is to conduct wire-tapping where there is a credible reason to suspect a terrorist threat. This way we can minimize and hopefully eliminate the threat of terrorism in the US without taking away the freedom of any innocent person. \n\nOf course the Democrats who had no problem in WWII corralling thousands of Japanese men, women and little children in make-shift prisons, want to tie the president's hands so he can not nip terrorism in the US in the bud.
310846
To those above, all because we've been wiretapping before doesn't make it any more 'right'.  Slavery went on for hundreds of years, and it still wasn't 'right'.  Besides, according to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution: "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".\n\nFor those of you who have 'nothing to hide', you'd be surprised about how quickly the tide can turn.  During the McCarthy era, merely saying some thing remotely related to communism to the wrong person was enough to get you under the eye of the FBI.
531223
I have a problem with the fact that the Commander-in-Sheik is issuing orders that ignore and/or violate federal law (FISA).\n\nNow, unfortunately, the phone call database is not a violation of federal law, since there is no presumed right to privacy in the records of what calls get made. I think that it's unreasonable, and thus in violation of the 4th Amendment, but the Courts haven't ruled on that issue yet.\n\nUPDATE. Actually, the phone call database IS apparently being compiled in violation of federal law. See the Stored Communications Act of 1986.
144968
Gawddd. . keep drinking the liberal Kool-Aid.\n\nLogically (but who would expect you to understand logic) it's virtually impossible to prove a negative so you wouldn't ever have 'evidence' that something was not used;  however, just from the fact that you have no evidence it was used would seem to be proof enough. . .if it was, there would have been a leak by now.\n\np.s.  Exactly how would wiretapping enable someone to win an election?
681498
hell no!!! it violates my Right to privacy, hello! why isn't anyone outraged about this. Whats the point of having the bill of right this a_s_s h_o_l_e (bush)is violating most of them, we might as well be Cuba!
98336
FISA attempts to impose a sense of ethics, in my opinion. Wire taps can be in place for up to 72 hrs befor a FISA court has to be asked for permission.\n\nYes, he did.
1163512
You can't hide anything from Bush now. Don't you remember? We now have domestic spying!
157044
There's this little news story now,  it takes a large chunk of time on national news and print and tv,  remember its the thing about Bush authorizing the NSA to listen to cell phone calls.\n\nSo able danger ended with some admiral or general saying we were told not to pursue what we had cause some white house clinton lawyer told us not to go any farther,\nand now george bush's lawyer, the attorney general, is saying its legal for us to spy and take action\n\nkick @ss
944002
They already have a law in place to listen to calls for 72 hours before they get a warrant. It's the FISA law. And the president is to obey the law, just like us.Without oversight, the president can wiretap anybody he wants. That is what got Nixon in trouble and caused the creation of the FISA law.
1168833
They don't want to because that would interfere with them being able to violate privacy laws based on the fact we r in 'a war on terror'. If they caught him, the opposing side would have an argument for ending this war on terror.\n\nAn example is recently in the news, the Bush administration has been illegally examining and illegally has access to ALL financial bank transactions. They have the entire database; although, they claim they are only looking at international transactions. BUT, the do have access to domestic transactions.\n\nThis is a violation of privacy laws here. It's not that they couldn't get this information, it is that they were required to go before a judge and get approval before invading someone's financial records.\n\nBush has defended it stating 'we r at war'. That's just one example. His administration has continually violated laws like this using the war on terror excuse.\n\nAlso, the Taliban offerred to surrender B. Laden the month before we invaded Afghanistan. Their stipulations were that he be given to a nuetral country in order to receive a fair trial and also to be recognized internationally. Bush said NO. \n\nSo, if Bush really wanted him, he had the chance right after 911. That is proof enough.
122788
I find nothing wrong with wiretapping suspected terrorist as long as a warrent by the court has been issued. \nWhen the government does not follow the law that is when it becomes a problem, aside from that as long as our government follows the law with regards to wiretapping it is fine
439123
Absolutely not.  Contrary to what Mr. Bush claims, I don't think that the Authorization for the Use of Force gave him the power to listen to conversations without evidence.  It's a constitutional right that we should be secure in our property and effects, and the government can NOT remove that right without due process (i.e. a warrant).  The day that we let him take that power, we can also say goodbye to free speech.
221418
Not at all.\n\nThere are millions of people screaming, "Unfair! You are violating my rights!" Yet, how many people can actually say the have been a subject of the so-called "domesticy spying" program? How many people have actually had their phones tapped and conversations recorded?\n\nFor that matter, how many people have been the subject of a Patriot Act investigation? How many have had their library records looked at? How many have had their information spread across every intelligence agency in the nation?\n\nMy point is this: The only people who are being targeted are being targeted for a REASON. The government does not just indiscriminately say, "Let's listen in on John Q. Public's conversation for sh!ts and giggles today." Uncle Sam does not just pick phone numbers at random to listen to. There is a REASON they investigate who they do. And I, for one, WANT them investigated. If they are doing no wrong, the investigation will clear them. But if they ARE doing wrong, I sure as hell hope we are doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to stop them. The next attack could cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.\n\n"When NSA goes after the content of a communication under this authorization from the president, the NSA has already established its reasons for being interested in that specific communication. I've said in other places this isn't a drift net over Lackawanna or Freemont or Dearborn, grabbing all communications and then sifting them out."\n\n-- Gen. Michael Hayden (Deputy Director of National Intelligence)\n\nBottom line: If your phone hasn't been tapped, your rights have not been violated. If you are not engaging in any illegal activity, chances are 99.999% that you phone hasn't been tapped.