Please help me untangle warrentless wiretapping.

If a United States law enforcement agency has a warrant to wiretap, cialis sale sovaldi isn’t that warrant normally aimed at just one of the two parties in the conversation?

1.) Doesn’t the use of that warrant ALWAYS violate the non-targeted parties’ right not to be listened to?

Don’t we do that pretty much all the time?

2.) Isn’t the United States government justified in listening to ANY foreign communication they can intercept in a time of war?

Did we need warrants to break the Japanese and German codes in WW2? Did we get a warrant to tap into the Soviet Union’s undersea communications cables during the cold war?

3.) Don’t the vast majority of these warrantless wiretaps involve listening to foreign parties (which we have an unlimited “right” to listen to) talking to people inside the U.S. (who are analogous to the innocent second party in any wiretap situation)?

Can someone explain to me what the problem is? (I’m not being rhetorical, I just don’t see it.)

Add comment January 25th, 2006