# NSA wiretaps: Repubs will not check if it was illegal, no sweat, will make it legal. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 8, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474 "2006-03-08T02:39:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gladstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90db22/32.png) [@Gladstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gladstone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/41 "2006-03-09T01:38:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It strikes me as a bit unfair to expect to prevail on a textualist argument only when it suits your side. Such as when Bush [maintains](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/9587683) that one of his nominees to the Supreme Court is a strict constructionist who shares his judicial strict constructionist philosophy yet consistently takes the approach that many of his asserted Commander-in-Chief and Executive powers, clearly not foreseen by the Founders either in treatise or text itself, are nearly without check or review? ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/42 "2006-03-09T01:44:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? What the president was doing was not illegal. It was only illegal in your, and your brethern’s, fevered imagination. > [@](#): > > From a textualist perspective, I agree that the President’s actions were illegal. … If he had asked me to advise him, I would have advised him that they violated the plain, black-letter law as written. You just blew my mind!! My head is spinning like a top! ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/43 "2006-03-09T01:49:19Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > It’s called a Red Herring. Don’t feel too bad, we all fall for it from time to time 😉 What’s really irritating about it is that I’ll readily admit I may very well have missed some part of the story. I asked for cites specifically for factual content so that I might be “relieved of my ignorance”. Given a cite, I feel it’s my obligation to consider it; of course, I think it’s the poster’s obligation to at least _make sure the fucking cite is relevant_. At this point, I’ll assume that all my understandings were on the mark, and that both **Mr. Moto** and **smiling bandit** are simply partisan dicks with thier heads up their collective ass. A rather neat trick for a dick; one might say they must be _really big_ dicks to anatomically manage such a feat. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/44 "2006-03-09T01:54:09Z")
> [@Arnold Winkelried](#): > > You just blew my mind!! My head is spinning like a top! Well, clearly, **Bricker** is simply suffering from a case of fraternal fevered imagination. You should be welcoming him to the librul camp. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/45 "2006-03-09T03:19:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, clearly, **Bricker** is simply suffering from a case of fraternal fevered imagination. You should be welcoming him to the librul camp. 😃 I feel good. After all I was involved in a rather “spirited” discusion in which I claimed Bush’s actions were illegal, and was strongly disagreed with. Damn I feel good now. 😃😃😃😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fritz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Fritz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fritz)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/46 "2006-03-09T03:21:15Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > _snip_ > A rather neat trick for a dick; one might say they must be _really big_ dicks to anatomically manage such a feat. Heh. Good one. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/47 "2006-03-09T10:56:53Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Jeez, another **Mr. Moto** tu quoque goes down ignominiously in flaming wreckage! I wouldn’t expect you, sir, to note the subtle differences between a tu quoque and legal precedent. But for those that can understand these, I invite you to read [In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001](http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf), a decision of the FISA Court of Review. This decision not only has to deal explicitly with the _Truong_ precedent, it finds in that precedent and others inherent executive authority to conduct warrantless searches of this type, with or without the FISA act. > [@](#): > > The Truong court, asdid all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/48 "2006-03-09T11:52:54Z")
Here’s one of the problems I have with all of this. The Bush administration claims it’s using this warrantless wiretap system for foreign intelligence gathering. But from what I’ve heard, I’m getting the impression that this includes the tapping of American citizens’ phones, _when talking domestically_, who have at some time in the past given an indication of some connection with Al Quaeda or some other unspecified “threat.” In other words, if Uncle Mo lives in Saudi Arabia and is suspected (NOT convicted, just suspected) of terrorist activity, and he calls me, they might then wiretap me domestically because I’d had contact with Uncle Mo. I still don’t understand why it would be so hard to get a warrent within the 15 day limit - why this is so essential to the so-called War on Terror. If the evidence justifying a tap isn’t sufficient to convince a FISA court, obviously pre-disposed to agree (they’ve rejected all of five applications in their entire history), what the hell is the justification at all? But even more importantly, this is an utterly black program. There is absolutely NOTHING to stop the Bush Administration, or even some rogue member of it, from getting taps on political enemies or random citizens. And, forgive me, Bush-supporters, but this administration in general and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in particular have demonstrated a delightful penchant for petty vindictiveness (Valerie Plume, anyone?), and misleading to the point of lying (WMD in Iraq for starters). Congressional oversight by a handful of additional members? Bah. They aren’t going to press - they’ll roll over and play dead as soon as they’re told “We can’t give you details because it would threaten National Security.” So why are we ALLOWING this to happen? Can they point to a \*single \* benefit this program has actually brought to the country? The American citizens boggle my mind. They’re all up in arms because the DPW (a government organization from a state which amounts to a corporation and almost certainly has no interests but the standard one of making every cent they can) wants to administer American ports, yet they don’t give a shit about protecting the very liberties that make us what we are as a nation. And \*\*Bricker \*\* and **Mr. Moto** , I don’t understand you either! What makes you so willing to tear down the nation in order to “save” it? Don’t you care about the fact that the single most important thing distinguishing the US from other nations is the very civil liberties and protections you’re so willing, nay eager, to give away? So you trust Bush. God knows why, but fine - you’re entitled to trust whomever you wish to. But are you so sure that future presidents will be so trustworthy in your mind? Because this doesn’t just end with this administration, you know. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/49 "2006-03-09T12:08:34Z")
Mr. Moto, that… doesn’t mean what you say it means. The excerpt is incomplete, and has to do with additional restrictions in the case of wiretapping of a agent of a foreign power. That sentence has to do with the primary purpose test, in relation to the Patriot Act, after evidence has been supplied to the FISA court. It has to do with the shift to a criminal prosecution, and points out that counterintelligence issues continue even during criminal prosecution. It does not handwave away the FISA court. Indeed, the very next sentence asks if FISA amplifies the president’s power by providing a classic warrant situation. It has little to do with warrantless wiretapping of american citizens who are not agents of foreign powers. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/50 "2006-03-09T13:28:06Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I wouldn’t expect you, sir, to note the subtle differences between a tu quoque and legal precedent. But for those that can understand these, I invite you to read [In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001](http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf), a decision of the FISA Court of Review. I am sad to say that I now think you are not very smart, and a willing asshole to be shamelessly used by the right. I am sorry about the passing of this circumstance, but nothing else can explain your recent actions. Whoever guided you to this matter and this document and explained it to you lied to you. What you have in a huff brought to us has to do with whether information gathered in surveillance can be used in a criminal proceeding - what is the “primary purpose,” as they say repeatedly. > [@](#): > > This decision not only has to deal explicitly with the _Truong_ precedent, it finds in that precedent and others inherent executive authority to conduct warrantless searches **of this type** , with or without the FISA act. (bolding mine) Where “this type” refers to ([per Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act)) > [@](#): > > Without a court order > > The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [2a]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [4] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[5] Nobody is contending that an agent of a foreign power who is not a US person who is engaged in espionage is not to be subjected to a warrantless wiretap. This is particularly if such surveillance occurred prior to the enactment of FISA. So your efforts here are either a tu quoque, a red herring, or a typical ham-fisted bullshit rightwing effort to distract from the critical examination of Republican shenanigans. You have also misstated the impact of your own cites. In fact, your very own cite says on page 39: > [@](#): > > With limited exceptions not at issue here, both Title III and FISA require prior judicial scrutiny of an application for an order authorizing electronic surveillance. 50 U.S.C. § 1805; 18 U.S.C. § 2518. And there is no dispute that a FISA judge satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a “neutral and detached magistrate.” See United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1987) (FISA court is a “detached and neutral body”); see also Keith, 407 U.S. at 323 (in domestic national security context, suggesting that a request for prior court authorization could, in sensitive cases, be made to any member of a specially designated court). Meaning that this decision explicitly recognizes the need for warrants in all cases, barring **limited exceptions** , which \*\*aren’t even at issue \*\* in this decision. Asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/51 "2006-03-09T13:38:12Z")
Sure. However, FISA itself is constitutional only if it does not interfere with the president’s warmaking powers as laid out in Article II. The FISA Court of Review, which handles FISA appeals, explicitly states such, as does other case law. Those powers are quite broad indeed, and have in the past always included broad authority to conduct espionage and internal surveillance. It is certainly a mistake to regard the Bush administration’s actions here as unquestionably illegal, given all of this. It is more accurate to say there is a conflict in the law that should be resolved. It seems that is is being resolved in favor of surveillance being conducted with congressional review, which would be correct given existing constitutional roles in warfighting. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/52 "2006-03-09T13:57:11Z")
I have not seen one single argument put forth as to why FISA is insufficient. What impediments has FISA put into place that have hindered our ability to conduct surveillance? FISA seems a thoughtful and comprehensive effort to balance our need for security with a protection from unwarranted spying on everyday Americans. Can you present any such argument? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/53 "2006-03-09T14:00:15Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > This decision not only has to deal explicitly with the _Truong_ precedent, it finds in that precedent and others inherent executive authority to conduct warrantless searches of this type, with or without the FISA act. As **E-Sabbath** points out, your abbreviated excerpt is misleading (at best). For those who are actually going to read the case, the next sentence (bottom of p. 48) is: > [@](#): > > The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable. However, thinking about it, none of this actually addresses my original question: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > this has been going on for years under multiple administrations (at least 5 presidencies) > > cite? My understanding is that the so-called “wall” between foreign and domestic spying was a direct justification here. (Warrantless) wiretapping of US citizens was reconginzed as unconsitutional and had distinctly not been done by administrations since Nixon. Now, I suppose one might say that my objection was unclearly worded, which I can accept – it’s my obligation as objector to be clear. What I was looking for was whether “this” (i.e., warrantless wiretapping) “has been going on for years under multiple administrations”. The Truong case is (obviously) tangentially related, but _doesn’t answer the question_. The very fact that events in Truong took place prior to the passage of FISA rule it out as an answer. I only wish I had not fallen for the bait and switch earlier. So, more succinctly: _Has there been a spate_ (as implied by **smiling bandit** , not just a single incident) _of warrantless wiretapping of US citizens since the passage of FISA (during the Carter administration)_? Note that to answer this question, the actual constitutionality of FISA doesn’t matter a whit. The question is: has warrantless wiretapping “been going on for years” or is this a Bush novelty? The answer to this is, IMO, obvious – if domestic warrantless wiretapping “had been going on for years”, the “wall” between foreign and domestic surveillance would not have been an issue. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/54 "2006-03-09T14:20:19Z")
**Bricker** , as someone who can argue any side of anything, let me ask you to again take the president’s back and answer this: If Bush believed that warrantless wiretapping of American citizens was legal, why did he state (paraphrased): “Wiretaps require a court order. Nothing has changed.” ? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/55 "2006-03-09T14:21:55Z")
And, just to be even more clear, my original request for citations was prompted by **smiling bandit** ’s _pooh-poohing_ of this as an issue, relying on the usual Republican _they did it too_ justification (which I find extremely tedious, irrelevant, and irritating). No, it’s my understanding that “they” _didn’t do it at all_. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/56 "2006-03-09T14:24:43Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Sure. However, FISA itself is constitutional only if it does not interfere with the president’s warmaking powers as laid out in Article II. The FISA Court of Review, which handles FISA appeals, explicitly states such, as does other case law. > > Those powers are quite broad indeed, and have in the past always included broad authority to conduct espionage and internal surveillance. > > It is certainly a mistake to regard the Bush administration’s actions here as unquestionably illegal, given all of this. It is more accurate to say there is a conflict in the law that should be resolved. It seems that is is being resolved in favor of surveillance being conducted with congressional review, which would be correct given existing constitutional roles in warfighting. There is no “conflict of law”, there is a sad, and ultimately legally insufficient, attempt to justify, after the fact, Bush’s wiretapping of US citizens. All these issues, all these red herrings that the right has thrown up were raised, debated, considered, and dealt with over 25 years ago when Congress enacted FISA. At that time, the Justice Department agreed with Congress that they could regulate the area of foreign surveillance. And your “cites” to Truong and Sealed Cases both support the fact that FISA is not unconsitutional. The President does have the power to conduct foreign surveillance. This power, which is not even specifically enumerated, is not absolute. A good example is the use of torture. This administration had originally made the exact same claim, saying that the President has the inherent power to ignore statutory prescriptions against torture. Even they had the brains to finally reject that argument, yet they still cling to it in this arena, mainly because, as pathetic as it is, it’s all they got. I am encouraged to see the change in the right from “it’s absolutely legal!” to “it’s an unresolved legal issue”. It gives one hope that, maybe, just maybe, we could get to the bottom of this with a Congressional investigation. And then the Republicans wave their hands, abandon critical thinking, and fall back into the party line. Bunch of fucking cowards. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/57 "2006-03-09T14:42:35Z")
Hamlet, you are my fucking hero. I agree there is NO conflict of law. The LAW says words to the effect of “get a warrant in x number of days”. Period. Further, the argument from claimed “textualists” that some “unitary something or other” takes precedence over the black and white text, is laughable. Finally, the cowardly attempt by partisan politicians to make all this legal After The Fact, is too close to the Nixonian argument of “it’s legal if/because I do it”. ---
**Author:** ![Gladstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90db22/32.png) [@Gladstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gladstone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/58 "2006-03-09T14:44:37Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I am encouraged to see the change in the right from “it’s absolutely legal!” to “it’s an unresolved legal issue”. It gives one hope that, maybe, just maybe, we could get to the bottom of this with a Congressional investigation. You have way too much faith in Congress and Congressional investigations. As you’ve pointed out, this isn’t really a factual dispute where more evidence or testimony would point to one conclusion over the other. This is a legal/constitutional dispute that comes down to opinions. While one opinion may have much more of a basis than the other, the most a Congressional investigation would do would be to find that the warrantless wiretapping of US citizens during a time of war was not an exception to the FISA act and find that any such wiretapping program from that point forward would be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/59 "2006-03-09T15:36:29Z")
> [@Gladstone](#): > > You have way too much faith in Congress and Congressional investigations. As you’ve pointed out, this isn’t really a factual dispute where more evidence or testimony would point to one conclusion over the other. This is a legal/constitutional dispute that comes down to opinions. While one opinion may have much more of a basis than the other, the most a Congressional investigation would do would be to find that the warrantless wiretapping of US citizens during a time of war was not an exception to the FISA act and find that any such wiretapping program from that point forward would be illegal. The unfortunate fact is that there is not a whole lot that can be done in this situation. Nobody knows for sure if their rights are being violated, nobody knows if they’ve been tapped, nobody can sue to enjoin the President’s actions, and nobody is going to prosecute under FISA. The only realistic event I can see happening that would even begin to challenge the President is a real, dedicated Congressional investigation, complete with subpoenas, oaths, and possible perjury charges. It is the only thing that I can see that is realistic and just might hold the President accountable for his actions. It is the last straw of hope I hold. But even I think it is unlikely to amount to anything. As I said in another thread: Here’s my prediction, so take it worth a grain of salt. Congress will continue it’s investigation for a little while, calling law professors, constitutional lawyers, and maybe a flunkie or two. While the investigation is dragging on, a bill will be passed through both houses, and signed by the President, that would amend FISA and allow the President to do what he is doing now. The investigation will peter out because nobody really cares, and becausee nobody wants to be painted by this administration as being soft on terrorism. Nobody will give a shit that the President violated the law, no one will be prosecuted, nobody will be impeached, and nobody will care. Republicans will claim victory, Democrats will be portrayed as whiny terrorists sympathizers. In other words, just like it is now Seems I was wrong and we wouldn’t even get an investigation. There goes the last little hope and respect I had. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474/60 "2006-03-09T16:25:20Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **Bricker** , as someone who can argue any side of anything, let me ask you to again take the president’s back and answer this: > > If Bush believed that warrantless wiretapping of American citizens was legal, why did he state (paraphrased): “Wiretaps require a court order. Nothing has changed.” ? Context is all. The President was undoubtedly speaking of wiretapping purely domestic conversations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nsa-wiretaps-repubs-will-not-check-if-it-was-illegal-no-sweat-will-make-it-legal/347474.md?page=4)