Did President Bush break any ethical laws by wiretapping american phones ?
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.
1073757
Right now, absolutely nothing.  Bush himself signed away whistleblower protections in any executive agencies in the US government.  If they talk, they're in deep ship, end of story.  There is by law no more accountability in any government agency.  The 9th circuit has recently upheld the Bush law, so it does stand.
688369
Bush isn't spying in on your calls, the CIA has reviewed phone records and call patterns- not listening in on actual calls.\nIf we can prevent another 9-11 incident by watching call patterns wouldn't you expect it?\n\nPLEASE EVERYONE- READ THIS: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml
714344
In violation of his oath of office, Bush used signing statements to negate laws passed by Congress, not with a veto, but with his personal opinion. Bush, thus, elevated himself above the rule of law that has protected America from becoming a tyranny and made a mockery of the separation of powers that are a foundation of American liberty.\n\nThe notion that Americans can be protected from "terror" by giving up the Bill of Rights(and we have) is absurd. Democrats are complicit in this absurd notion. Too many have been intimidated into voting for police state legislation, because they lacked the GUTS to call police state legislation by its own name. The fact is, some legislation passed during the Bush administration is far more dangerous to Americans than Muslim terrorists. \n\nWith the overnight destruction of civil liberties that were 800 years in their creation, the United States stands at a watershed. If the legislation that has been put on the books permitting spying on Americans without a court warrant, legalizing torture and self-incrimination, and repealing habeas corpus and the right to an attorney remains on the books, the United States will be controlled by regime regardless of which party is in power.
109924
First off, Domestic Warrentless Spying is a misnomer.  For decades, the government can listen to calls without a warrent, and then go for a warrent afterwards.  In this case, the Bush administration used executive power to say that a warrent isn't even needed after the fact, which is something the Clinton adminstration did as well.  It is not to monitor your calls to your friends.  It is to monitor calls that are received from and placed to known terrorists overseas.\nSecond, Congress passed a law which Bush signed, creating strict restrictions against torture and affirming that it is illegal.  So, Bush isn't supporting torture.
29220
You must have talked to the President recently,because as far as I know he admitted of spying after the 9/11 attacks of intercepting Messages coming from foreigners that might have Terrorist connections here,that's how they found out the Brooklin Bridge was a target,On the other hand spying was done on Americans like M.L King on the orders of Robert Kennedy,spying was done by Nixon on democratic headquarters,even Clinton ordered some spying because of terrorists in this country,the only difference is that Bush did not bother to get the warrants necesary,but after 9/11, congress themselves gave him the powers to protect this country,whether congress went into specifics on how it should be done is still not known
1182789
The Bush Administration has used an interesting method to say one thing and mean another. Like the comments of Bush in his joint statement with the Leader of Austria. Talking about Iran, he boldly states that America is transparent in it's govermental conduct. We all know about NSA Thing, the FISA Court, the Cheney meeting with the heads of the oil companies, the Plame affair including the yellow cake statements made by the President in the STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH  and so forth. \nAnd, can anyone deny that Bush loves a secret any secret, and where I come from, America, secrets are not transparent. So Bush or Tony ShowBusiness may say it, but that doesn't make it true.
170983
Wikipedia\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiretap\n\n"Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states (i.e., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation."
239056
"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)\n\nTwelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping."\n\nHope that helps.
314694
In public, without using electronics? No.\n\nIf you are wiretapping or using other electronic devices, probably.  If you provide more details, you might get more specific help.\n\n(The laws in question will probably be Tennessee, but federal law may or may not be implicated.)
746197
I do not think that he should be impeached. But if he were, it would be for violating the Constitutional rights of US citizens by wiretapping their phones without a warrant from a judge. Wiretapping without a warrant is a federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.\n\nI would not impeach him, however. He needs to concentrate on running the country. But come Inaugeration Day, 2009, I'd have a couple of D.C. police at the Capitol to take him into custody. He did, after all, violate the law.
876546
No the original investigations had to do with some failed real estate dealings and went from there to encompass everything that the Clinton's did for the previous 20 years. It was modern day witch hunt. People that support Bush do not endorse reality, for before he even became president he had several more shady dealings that he was directly involved in. He was investigated by the SEC and had those records sealed , several oil companies that failed, it is just too many things to put here. As for his presidency he has continually violated the Constitution and pushed the limits of executive powers. Now that the Democratic Party is in power their should be several investigations. The evidence that led up to the war, Halliburton, illegal wiretapping, Guantanamo, 9/11, holding American without charging them. Bush deserves to be in prison not the White House.
124305
He's openly admitted to illegally wiretapping US citizens.  I think the option of impeachment should be investigated.
673483
NOT AT ALL.\n\nDICTATOR BUSH DOES WHATEVER HE WANTS. SCANDAL AFTER SCANDAL HE CONTINUES TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND NOBODY IS STOPPING HIM.  HE'S LONG OVERDUE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
565733
I'm a democrat and i am not angry.  I notice that people in power tend to use that power for self interest.  This is true of democrats and republicans so there's no difference.  I am not angry at George Bush, he is just doing his best.  I hardly ever raise a fuss about things.  Just work quietly here in my community.  Honestly i think the whole thing about wiretapping is overblown and i wish there was more on the radio about darfour.
685601
Yes, it is a federal crime and probably a state crime, but that all depends on the state. The US Code prohibits the " interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications."
418527
Ever hear of the Patriot Act? The NSA's been doing just that in a big way since 9/11,and was doing it on a smaller scale since before that. Also let's not forget the FBI,\nthat also has a history of tapping phones since J.Edgar\nHoover-I'm sure they've kept up with the times.