Well it really depends on what the surveillance was. Eavesdropping on the content of conversations when both parties were unaware, yeah bad stuff. Compiling lists of people you call or email or IM, no problem, perfectly legal even without special permission or a warrent. Remember, anything you say or publish in a public setting (a VERY delicate term) you have no right to privacy in. On the metro and talking on a cell phone? The government can listen in on you. In a phone booth, however, a warrent is needed. Where's the distinction? Its all about a reasonable expectation of privacy, it one exists then a warrent is needed. If the administration can show that there is no REP, then there is no Constitutional violation. That will be really hard to do if the wiretaps were as intrusive as they seem to be. War powers only go so far. Actions are not measured by intent, only by results; a lesson this administration should have learned by now. Perhaps we can return virtue to the Oval Office in 2008, God knows it hasn't been there in twenty years.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-22 12:56 am (UTC)Remember, anything you say or publish in a public setting (a VERY delicate term) you have no right to privacy in. On the metro and talking on a cell phone? The government can listen in on you. In a phone booth, however, a warrent is needed. Where's the distinction? Its all about a reasonable expectation of privacy, it one exists then a warrent is needed. If the administration can show that there is no REP, then there is no Constitutional violation. That will be really hard to do if the wiretaps were as intrusive as they seem to be.
War powers only go so far. Actions are not measured by intent, only by results; a lesson this administration should have learned by now.
Perhaps we can return virtue to the Oval Office in 2008, God knows it hasn't been there in twenty years.