is wiretapping constitutional?
90676
Wire tapping is perfectly legal. Within the context of domestic crime, yes a warrant must be issued by a judge. In terms of national security, the precident has always been there for the interception of enemy communications (whether that be mail, paper packages, radio transmissions, cable transmissions, etc). In times of war it is justified to do such a thing.
531123
For the people that don't know what that is:\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/\n 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\nIt really is sad to see those soldiers fighting for freedom when freedom is being taken away.
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.
403101
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\nRegardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
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.
283091
As to the constitutional grounds upon which privacy is based...  First, it should be noted that the word 'privacy' is not found anywhere in the constitution.  However, as the Supreme Court noted in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Bill of Rights and in particular the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, create a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people."  In Griswold, the Court used such reasoning to strike down a Connecticut law that made it a crime for pharmacists to dispense birth control.  In 1973, of course, the Court relied on its decision in Griswold to strike down a Texas law that banned abortions in the landmark case, Roe v. Wade.  An excellent website for more on the right to privacy is:\n\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy\n\nFor recent news on the contemporary debate over the constitutional and legal aspects of abortion, see:\n\nhttp://jurist.law.pitt.edu/currentawareness/abortion.php
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.
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.
1046983
It was a stupid thing. Last year I did a report that showed it violated at least 3 amendments in the bill of rights. I think the only reason why it was passed was due to the paranoia to just kill all those terrorist. Some of the stuff that had "illegal" wiretaps were REPASSED this year. So yes, I do know the truth.
1136507
In a way, both yes and no.  It gives the government far greater leeway in how/when they can watch someone without a warrant.  In some cases, that prevents people from knowing they're suspected.  In other cases, the warrant would be kept a secret anyway, so the person really knows no difference.
297396
Warrants are required for all wiretaps involving united states citizens.  It is a law called the "Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act".  It expressly says that it must be followed by all government agencies.  READ IT.  It's in English.  Bush has admitted to breaking that law, but the republican congress has decided not to investigate.\n\nSince there are no warrants, nobody knows if there are terrorists on the other end or not.  It does not have to be legally established.\n\nAlso, when US Attorney General Alberto gonzales testified before congress, he was asked if he could gaurantee that the progam was not being used to monitor calls that originated and ended in WITHIN THE USA, with us citizens on both ends.  He said he could not gaurantee that.
10934
Who decides who is a suspected terrorist? \n\nLet me remind you of this: \n\nAmendment IV\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. \n\nThe patriotic and legal way to tap someone's phone is to get a warrant from a judge, not an executive order. \n\nThe problem is that the executive branch is bypassing the judicial branch.  There is no seperation of power.
586420
Warrantless searches, phone trolling, torture, kidnapping, indefinite imprisonment without charges, denial of legal representation, you name it. It's all legal. Just ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. If the president says it's legal, it's legal. When we're at war, the Constitution, the Congress and civility are out the door. \n\nBush always plays the fear card, telling us he's "protecting" us from al-Qaeda as he takes us on our national plunge into fascism. He seizes power with impunity, and the Republicans in Congress are willing accomplices as they abrogate the fundamental responsibilities of their branch of the federal government to a power-crazed madman. \n\nAs America sleeps, basic rights, especially privacy, are under assault. The concentration of claimed authority in the Executive Branch -- removed from congressional authorization and outside the scope of judicial review -- is dangerous and frightening. \n\nThe Busheviks are not conservatives -- they are neo-fascists with an agenda aimed at protecting a privileged elite and using the unbridled power of an authoritarian government to enhance and protect their wealth. \n\nThey're not wearing black shirts, boot-stomping down Pennsylvania Avenue in the style of the more theatrical of their ilk. But their insidious threat is real and chilling.
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
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."
1091870
Of course it’s a matter of opinion.  Just this week a law was passed, by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A., that search and enter, bust your door down anytime for any or no reason, without warrant is not only okay (always was). Although now any evidence found, in this what I will call illegal action, is admissible in a court of law. That’s just one example. \nI like the Patriot Act 2 answer- I too hope all know and read the PNAC (project for a new Amerikan century) I couldn't resist the "K".\n\nMy Answer is the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.\n(today)
638339
It's kind of a false dilemma.  Security and freedom can coexist, it just makes it a little harder.  I personally would rather be able to read, write, think, or say whatever I want without sanction than feel secure under surveillance.