[mike777]

I find this whole wiretapping story more and more confusing the more I read about it.

It seems packets of information flow over a worldwide network. These packets can be picked up and gathered outside of of the country they start or go to.

I assume we do not need a USA warrant to bug Russian or Chinese networks?


On the one hand I am all for preserving privacy and civil rights. Who wants the government listening in on our private calls or internet stuff.

On the other hand I am all for our spies trying to gather intelligience on the bad guys and getting intelligience to make informed or better decisions. It seems being able to gather data and communication of information is one good source of that.

On top of that we need to be able to actually act on that information in a timely manner once we get it.


Even if we can get a warrant after the fact it is going to take sometime to act.

1) I have no idea what our government does with information it has that it deems important and a warrant is denied. Do they just forgot about the information as if it never existed?
2) From what little I understand about communications in the digitial age, it seems much of it moves around in the form of packets over something called a network.
3) I assume we do not need a warrant to steal, borrow or spy on information outside the usa? We do not need a warrant to bug the Russian or Chinese leadership overseas I assume.
4) If I understand correctly my local telephone call or a local call in Pakistan goes in the forms of packets over some network but the pathway can literally be outside the country. The computer picks the best pathway over the network and that pathway may literally be outside the country.
5) Does that mean the government can listen to my conversations if they pick it up outside the country by bugging some foreign network?
6) Can our government listen to a local(Iraqi) terrorist conversation if the packets happen to go through the USA?

[Winstonm]

Mike, as you are well aware, the argument is not about "the government's" right to legally wiretap; the argument is whether or not the executive branch only should make the decisions you question.

Our form of government was purposefully created to be slow moving and impractical - in order to ensure a monarchy could not be created. Any time you place decisions solely in the hands of one branch of the government, that branch has the powers of a monarchy.

Regardless of what Leo Strauss believed, he didn't write the U.S. constitution and his ideas are the antithesis of those ideals. If Straussian political idealism is adopted by the U.S., the great experiment is over - democracy and freedom are dead.

There can never be perfect security, no matter who "decides". The trade off for the great American experiment in self rule is risk. Although in times of extreme crisis it may be theoretically better to have a single decision maker, that single decision maker can never totally eliminate the risk. Self-rule is worth whatever additional risk and sacrifice is required to protect against the greater enemy - the loss of self rule to a single despot.

[mike777]

Winston I hope you are not knocking down some strawman that I did not put out there.

As I said, not only do I not know the answer to my questions, I am not even sure I understand what the question is when it comes to wiretapping.

I note you seem to want someone else involved, but who and how and exactly how involved in what I am unsure of in this whole wiretap debate.

1) What is the exactly does wiretapping mean? Who, where when?
2) If you mean the USA cannot spy on anyone's data or communication or information or anything, anytime, anywhere without a warrant. OK but no one seems to be saying that.
3) Who else decides and on what basis do "they" decide? As I said I am all for keeping the law, I am just not sure what the law is or means. Do we want someone unelected and who we cannot fire if we disagree to decide and if so on what basis do they decide

As I said I do not even understand the question in this whole wiretapping debate. I understand one side seems to hate or distrust Bush or some evil fascist dictator but what they are for other than peace, love and understanding is very unclear.

[Winstonm]

I will follow your lead, Mike, and withdraw from this thread. Oil and water.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jul 30 2007, 09:10 PM, said:

2) If you mean the USA cannot spy on anyone's data or communication or information or anything, anytime, anywhere without a warrant. OK but no one seems to be saying that.

I'll say that.

A warrant is used to make an arrest. Evidence, such as wiretapping, obtained without a warrant can't be used, directly or indirectly, to make an arrest.

If you aren't trying to make an arrest (such as the people in question aren't in the U.S.) then there's really no point in a warrant. For that matter, there's nothing keeping them from spying on you without a warrant, as long as they don't try to arrest you. If it's against the law, well, it's not like they're going to jail for it.