Enough is enough... Clinton speaks about his wiretaps

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Clinton says he didn't use warrantless wiretaps

Bloomberg News

Former President Clinton said Thursday that he never ordered wiretaps of American citizens without obtaining a court order, as President Bush has acknowledged he has done.
Clinton, in an interview broadcast Thursday on the ABC News program ''Nightline,'' said his administration either received court approval before authorizing a wiretap or went to court within three days after to get permission, as required by law.
''We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it,'' Clinton told ABC.
Bush said in December that he authorized wiretaps without obtaining court permission and defended the practice as a ''vital tool'' in tracking terrorist suspects and accomplices.
''I don't have enough facts to know why there would be some reluctance to go there,'' Clinton told ABC. ''I felt that the court and the setup was more than enough to do what we needed to do.''
Asked if the president should have the authority to order wiretaps without warrants, Clinton said, ''I think that's a decision the Supreme Court would have to resolve.''

SOURCE

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 759 • Replies: 13

No top replies

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

"Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant,....."

0 Replies

That's a physical search.

0 Replies

Logic tells me that a physical search is much more intrusive than that of tapping a phone call, so I would say my link not only applies, but actually more than applies. It shows that Clinton believed the president had even more power, not only to wiretap, but even physically search your private property without a warrant. After all, communications systems are not even your private property, they are governed and regulated by government agencies.

0 Replies

I'm not saying it's not relevant, but it clearly doesn't contradict the ex-president.

0 Replies

Quote:

After all, communications systems are not even your private property, they are governed and regulated by government agencies.

Actually, in most cases, when you sign the contract with the telco provider, you are guaranteed not to have your information or calls turned over to a third party, even the government, without a warrant.

I've been wondering how long it will be before the phone companies are taken to task for all this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Actually, in most cases, when you sign the contract with the telco provider, you are guaranteed not to have your information or calls turned over to a third party, even the government, without a warrant.

I've been wondering how long it will be before the phone companies are taken to task for all this.

Good luck. Since the telco owns the data - not the customer - they aren't in breach of any contract as long as they don't disclose the actual content of a call. The data concerning what number was called, from what phone, the time the call was placed and the duration of the call are all the property of the telco and they can do whatever they want to with it.

0 Replies

Presumably the NSA spying works by analyzing the content of the call, however; the content is not owned by the telco, and that is the privacy I am specifically referring to.

Ya can't run a content analysis without access to the content stream.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

True, but (and this was discussed in another thread a few weeks ago... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=65791 ) according to the articles I've seen the NSA wasn't doing content analysis. They were cited by several articles as saying that they were doing pattern analysis - which is all done with the call data records.

0 Replies

Clinton's statements bring up an interesting question. Why didn't President Bush et al go to a judge after the fact to get approval? I could see the argument that they had to move immediately and so went with Presidential approval, but within a couple of days a judge could have approved the surveillance.

0 Replies

I believe the NSA was doing far more than analyzing patterns. Statements made by Bushco. sure seem to give this impression.

We'll have to wait and see, but I firmly believe that there is content analysis being done. It only makes sense.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And why was Clinton bugging Princess Diana? Good grief, was he jealous or what?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1968664,00.html

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
After all, communications systems are not even your private property, they are governed and regulated by government agencies.

Actually, in most cases, when you sign the contract with the telco provider, you are guaranteed not to have your information or calls turned over to a third party, even the government, without a warrant.

I've been wondering how long it will be before the phone companies are taken to task for all this.

Cycloptichorn

You are wrong on that point. The User Agreement from Comcast says that if the records are requested by law enforcement that they will be turned over. It says nothing about a warrent being needed.

0 Replies

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ0NmZmM2MwYjRmODJhMGQ0ZTYzYTNjYjI4NWQ3ZWE=

Yes, sure, Bush invented illegal wiretaps, ha. Tell me more jokes of the day. At least Bush was trying to catch terrorists, not celebrities.

0 Replies

Enough is enough... Clinton speaks about his wiretaps

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know