Wiretapping Supporter Gets Wiretapped?

[auditor0007]

Congresswoman Angry Over WiretapCNN
posted: 32 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: National News, Political NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (April 22)- A key Democrat who reportedly was overheard on a National Security Agency wiretap discussing a deal with a suspected Israeli agent has called the wiretap an "abuse of power."

Harman Wiretap

Whichever side you may stand on this issue, this is friggin hilarious. Read the entire story.

 

[RodISHI]

I wouldn't think as a ranking member on the House intelligence Committee she should have a problem with this. When people go into a public position they have opened themselves up to scrutiny of everything they do.

"I am outraged to learn from reports leaked to the media over the last several days that the FBI or NSA secretly wiretapped my conversations in 2005 or 2006 while I was ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee," she wrote.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I wouldn't think as a ranking member on the House intelligence Committee she should have a problem with this. When people go into a public position they have opened themselves up to scrutiny of everything they do.

That is total bullshit. Unless they are supspected of something, they, like any of US, have the right not to be wiretapped.

What they hell kind of country do you want?

 

[auditor0007]

What is funny is that she supports this until it comes to her. Then to top it off, Alberto Gonzalez calls off an investigation into her dealings because of her support for it.

 

[auditor0007]

I wouldn't think as a ranking member on the House intelligence Committee she should have a problem with this. When people go into a public position they have opened themselves up to scrutiny of everything they do.

That is total bullshit. Unless they are supspected of something, they, like any of US, have the right not to be wiretapped.

What they hell kind of country do you want?

She wasn't the one they were interested in listening to. But apparently, she may have said some things that changed their minds. I just think it's hilarious.

 

[jillian]

She wasn't the one they were interested in listening to. But apparently, she may have said some things that changed their minds. I just think it's hilarious.

If they had a warrant for their intended target, I don't have a problem with it....

if there was no warrant for the intended target, I DO have a problem with it.

Why hysterical? Did she think warrantless wiretaps were ok? (I really have no idea, you apparently do based on the OP).

 

[RodISHI]

I wouldn't think as a ranking member on the House intelligence Committee she should have a problem with this. When people go into a public position they have opened themselves up to scrutiny of everything they do.

That is total bullshit. Unless they are supspected of something, they, like any of US, have the right not to be wiretapped.

What they hell kind of country do you want?

One where the leaders are fully aware that they are no better than the peasants that they rule over. One that they are fully subject to the same laws of the country just like anyone else out here.

Wire tapping is fine as long as it is you and not me is fairly classic. It is fine and dandy among certain leaders to let somone else's privacy be invaded yet they are above that? If my phone can be tapped and I have absolutely no affilliations or power of any kind why not hers? Be realistic here. I'm just a little ole nobody. She was on a national security committee.

 

[auditor0007]

She wasn't the one they were interested in listening to. But apparently, she may have said some things that changed their minds. I just think it's hilarious.

If they had a warrant for their intended target, I don't have a problem with it....

if there was no warrant for the intended target, I DO have a problem with it.

Why hysterical? Did she think warrantless wiretaps were ok? (I really have no idea, you apparently do based on the OP).

That's why you needed to read the entire story. Yes, she supported illegal wiretaps, that is until it came to her being tapped. Although it is not 100% clear, the wiretaps were said to be legal. I'm not certain if that means they had warrants or they were legal because they said they were.

The funniest thing though, is that the FBI was going to investigate her over some of her statements, but they did not to because of pressure from the Justice Department. The JD didn't want her investigated because she supported the warrantless wiretapping program.

 

[RodISHI]

..

According to the Congressional Quarterly article, the suspected Israeli agent was seeking Harman's help in persuading the Justice Department not to prosecute two AIPAC officials -- Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- on espionage charges for allegedly giving classified Pentagon documents to Israeli officials. Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to stand trial in June.

 

[editec]

Heard this woman on the radio.

She actually was offended that she was the subject of an investigation and wasn't WARNED that she was.

Does she really think when people are under investigation we all get a call from the authorities?

You could here her arrogant outrage that she was being treated just like a CITIZEN.

This is the problem with signing onto BAD LAWS.

Sooner or later those bad laws come back to bite the people who though they didn't apply to THEM.

If she was selling her influence?

Hang her.

I am so sick of this classist application of the law and I am completely sick to death of the Congress selling their votes to foreign powers.

We not a nation anymore, we're a host for parasites.

 

[jillian]

..

According to the Congressional Quarterly article, the suspected Israeli agent was seeking Harman's help in persuading the Justice Department not to prosecute two AIPAC officials -- Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- on espionage charges for allegedly giving classified Pentagon documents to Israeli officials. Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to stand trial in June.

which has nothing to do with the legality of the wiretap... unless another party to the conversation consented to it being taped.

federal wiretap laws generally require either a) a warrant...; or b) consent...

if either of those situations existed, then she got caught legitimately and really needs to stop whining.

if it was a warrantless search, my objection to that still stands, even if she was a creep wh thought warrantless wiretaps were ok.

although sometimes karma is a boomerang.

 

[Gunny]

I wouldn't think as a ranking member on the House intelligence Committee she should have a problem with this. When people go into a public position they have opened themselves up to scrutiny of everything they do.

That is total bullshit. Unless they are supspected of something, they, like any of US, have the right not to be wiretapped.

What they hell kind of country do you want?

Bullshit. ESPECIALLY if one is holding public office and a key position one should EXPECT to be wiretapped. Odds are good she was on a government phone and all your faux, partisan outrage aside, what is the FIRST thing they tell you about government phones?

They're monitored. By the government.

And no, you do NOT have a right to plot crimes against this country. The Constitution is not a suicide pact but you leftwingnuts sure try to use it as one.

If you're not doing anything wrong, what's there to worry about? Anyone listening to MY phone calls has got be bored. I imagine listening to yours they want to scrub their skulls out with a wire brush.

 

[Gunny]

I wouldn't think as a ranking member on the House intelligence Committee she should have a problem with this. When people go into a public position they have opened themselves up to scrutiny of everything they do.

That is total bullshit. Unless they are supspected of something, they, like any of US, have the right not to be wiretapped.

What they hell kind of country do you want?

She wasn't the one they were interested in listening to. But apparently, she may have said some things that changed their minds. I just think it's hilarious.

I agree. Thinks she's above her own rules.

 

[jillian]

Bullshit. ESPECIALLY if one is holding public office and a key position one should EXPECT to be wiretapped. Odds are good she was on a government phone and all your faux, partisan outrage aside, what is the FIRST thing they tell you about government phones?

They're monitored. By the government.

And no, you do NOT have a right to plot crimes against this country. The Constitution is not a suicide pact but you leftwingnuts sure try to use it as one.

If you're not doing anything wrong, what's there to worry about? Anyone listening to MY phone calls has got be bored. I imagine listening to yours they want to scrub their skulls out with a wire brush.

where was she wiretapped? if it was in her office, you're probably right that a government employee has no expectation of privacy.... same as with any other employer, you have to expect that things you say and put online are monitored.

if she was off of the premises of the congress, however, (and i didn't go back to check if that's mentioned), then i don't see where a government employee, regardless of GS level, waives the 4th Amendment.

and for constitutional purposes, it doesn't matter if you "have no reason to be wrorried"... the government's power is supposed to be limited regardless.

 

[Gunny]

She wasn't the one they were interested in listening to. But apparently, she may have said some things that changed their minds. I just think it's hilarious.

If they had a warrant for their intended target, I don't have a problem with it....

if there was no warrant for the intended target, I DO have a problem with it.

Why hysterical? Did she think warrantless wiretaps were ok? (I really have no idea, you apparently do based on the OP).

*yawn*

If she was on a government phone -- and I don't envision she was on her own talking to Israel -- a warrant is not required. They tell you straight up: Their phones, their dime, they are monitored. Too bad if she doesn't like it.

The warrant thing is a dead horse. Obviously no one gives a shit on EITHER side of the aisle.

 

[HUGGY]

Congresswoman Angry Over WiretapCNN
posted: 32 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: National News, Political NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (April 22)- A key Democrat who reportedly was overheard on a National Security Agency wiretap discussing a deal with a suspected Israeli agent has called the wiretap an "abuse of power."

Harman Wiretap

Whichever side you may stand on this issue, this is friggin hilarious. Read the entire story.

Now you've done it! Mention an Israeli in a "suspected" bad light around here and you will get a dozen goons on this site calling you a Nazi.

 

[jillian]

Congresswoman Angry Over WiretapCNN
posted: 32 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: National News, Political NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (April 22)- A key Democrat who reportedly was overheard on a National Security Agency wiretap discussing a deal with a suspected Israeli agent has called the wiretap an "abuse of power."

Harman Wiretap

Whichever side you may stand on this issue, this is friggin hilarious. Read the entire story.

Now you've done it! Mention an Israeli in a "suspected" bad light around here and you will get a dozen goons on this site calling you a Nazi.

feel like trolling? bummer... no one said a thing about that.

so tuck in the israel hatred and gt a grip.

 

[auditor0007]

Congresswoman Angry Over WiretapCNN
posted: 32 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: National News, Political NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (April 22)- A key Democrat who reportedly was overheard on a National Security Agency wiretap discussing a deal with a suspected Israeli agent has called the wiretap an "abuse of power."

Harman Wiretap

Whichever side you may stand on this issue, this is friggin hilarious. Read the entire story.

Now you've done it! Mention an Israeli in a "suspected" bad light around here and you will get a dozen goons on this site calling you a Nazi.

Hey, I support Israel completely. However, that does not include trying to use unlawful influence. I also happen to support warrantless wiretapping under the guidelines that it can only be used for international calls. Many may disagree, and those who do, have that right. What bothers me is that the JD didn't allow the FBI to pursue its investigation because she was a supporter of the program. That is just wrong. It is becoming more and more apparent that Alberto Gonzalez changed the rules as he went along to suit his own agenda.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

As far as I am concerned, any person in the Congress, who can be outed for anything in anyway possible, is progress in the right direction.

 

[amrchaos]

Congresswoman Angry Over WiretapCNN
posted: 32 MINUTES AGOcomments: 0filed under: National News, Political NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (April 22)- A key Democrat who reportedly was overheard on a National Security Agency wiretap discussing a deal with a suspected Israeli agent has called the wiretap an "abuse of power."

Harman Wiretap

Whichever side you may stand on this issue, this is friggin hilarious. Read the entire story.

Now you've done it! Mention an Israeli in a "suspected" bad light around here and you will get a dozen goons on this site calling you a Nazi.

Hey, I support Israel completely. However, that does not include trying to use unlawful influence. I also happen to support warrantless wiretapping under the guidelines that it can only be used for international calls. Many may disagree, and those who do, have that right. What bothers me is that the JD didn't allow the FBI to pursue its investigation because she was a supporter of the program. That is just wrong. It is becoming more and more apparent that Alberto Gonzalez changed the rules as he went along to suit his own agenda.

You support warrantless wiretapping for international calls.

How about talking to foreign citizens or agents? Or calling americans in foreign nations?

Yep--next thing we know, the government can tap you if you like to eat pasta, or egg noodles or drink Coffee!! Where are the conservatives and their "slippery slope" arguements!?!!?!!?