- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history."
Nadine Strossen, "No Safer, But a Little Less Free," Washington Post, September 2, 1996 pg A1
Thirteen years ago, President Clinton opened the door to warrantless wiretapping. It was George Bush who blew it into a Constitutional emergency. Everyone here struggles to right that mistake.
I have nothing against "roving wiretaps". The question was whether you needed a new court order for each place or modality of communication of a particular suspect (the 4thAm "particularly describing the place..." considerations). As the subject's the same, and the real "items" sought (the conversations, etc.) are the same, I don't have much issue with broadening the wiretaps to allow the "roving wiretap" ... as long as there's probable cause for the tap in the first place!!!! (which was a requirement for wiretaps beforehand as well).
As for the CALEA laws, I can understand the need for them (disclaimer: they have helped pay for, amongst other things, the nifty PowerMac I'm typing this on). Once again I don't have a problem with technical standards/requirements to facilitate legitimate law enforcement. Just as I wouldn't recommend that police searches be completely done away with, I understand that police have their job to do, and that the customary standards (probably cause, judicial oversight, etc.) that we have had since the Bill of Rights is a reasonable balance between individual liberty and government interests.
I think you're wrong in claiming that "Clinton opened the door to warrantless wiretapping" (not any more that any prior presidents).
What distinguishes Dubya's wiretapping is not the modality and technology, but rather the flagrant disregard for the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Cheers,
