June 27, 2007
Eavesdropping: Is It A Party Line?
- Alberto Gonzales
- White House
- Dept. of Justice
- Senate Judiciary Committee
- Sen. Charles Schumer
- Pres. George W. Bush
- Sen. Patrick Leahy
- White House Counsel
- Dick Cheney
- John Ashcroft
- James Comey
- Domestic Surveillance Program
- White House Subpoena
In the old days, having a “party line” meant that telephone customers shared the same network line for their calls. If someone picked up the phone when you were on a call with someone else, they could ‘join the party’ by eavesdropping in on your most intimate details, or joining the conversation.
Today, when somebody listens in on your phone call, there’s a whole new legal meaning associated with it. Now, unless the government has a warrant, it can’t eavesdrop on your phone calls.
At least that was the case until Sept. 11th came along.
Then President George W. Bush decided that it was O.K. to have a “terrorist surveillance program” to listen to conversations and open e-mails without first getting a judge to authorize a warrant.
When he was White House Counsel, Gonzales believed that this was a necessary legal Texas two-step dance around the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court case law on searches and seizure.
Despite years of requests for more information about the program, the White House, Dick Cheney, and Department of Justice Lawyers haven’t been forthcoming about the legal rationale and due process considerations behind the decision to use warrantless wiretaps inside the U.S.
Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that its time to set things straight by issuing subpoenas for the DOJ, the White House, Cheney, and the National Security Council for documents about the surveillance program. Documents produced in response to the subpoenas are due on July 18, 2007.
This is bound it end up in federal court.

No responses to "Eavesdropping: Is It A Party Line?"
Leave a Reply