Legal surveillance,not illegal eavesdropping, stopped theUKterrorist at-

Legal surveillance, not illegal eavesdropping, stopped the U.K. terrorist attacks

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

...Bush supporters have been attempting to exploit the U.K. terrorist plot to bolster support for an array of extremist and lawless Bush policies -- from warrantless eavesdropping to torture -- even though there is not a shred of evidence that any of those policies played any role whatsoever, either in the U.S. or England, in impeding this plot....

British law requires the issuance of warrants before telephone conversations can be intercepted, and every warrant must "name or describe either one person as the Interception Subject, or a single set of premises where the interception is to take place." Being able to eavesdrop only with warrants did not prevent British law enforcement from stopping these terrorist attacks. It is baffling, to put it mildly, why defenders of Bush's illegal eavesdropping would think that any of this bolsters their defense that warrantless eavesdropping is necessary....


This article first discovered through the research of
Journeyman
herein, @
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2777727#2777732

Recommended and kicked.

.....Europeans in general have, for a long time, been MUCH more intrusive about their surveillance and YES their eavesdropping than we were. The Europeans have all dealt with terrorism longer than we have though. Plus, some would argue that "eavesdropping" is simply another type of "surveillance.

What I want to know is what is the difference between "legal surveillance" and "illegal eavesdropping" other than the insertion of one word??

Before I get accused of being a neocon/fundie, repub lite, neocon wanna be, and who knows what else allow me to say that I've argued this same point many and many a time with neocons who claim "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide". My reply is always two-fold and always the same thing, "Yes I do have something to hide and it's called my PRIVACY. Plus, under our legal system it isn't my responsibility to prove I have not done anything wrong, it's the legal system's responsibility to prove I have done something wrong, exactly what that wrong thing was, and exactly when I did it. So yes, I have plenty to hide."

So again I'm simply asking what the difference is between "legal surveillance" and "illegal eavesdropping" other than the use of one word??

of a warrant.

For one this is to prevent the overly broad Nixonian approach that all who oppose my policies are criminal (& I'm no crook!)

We know better. We need checks & balances, like our constitution requires.

(Robin Williams to Iraqis in a recent interview - - you have trouble drafting a constitution? take ours, we're not using it.)

....you speak of no longer exist. Say what you may about getting a warrant but that warrant is the easiest thing to get if the person seeking the warrant knows the judges they are dealing with.

This is the mistake many people make these days, they think the checks and balances are still in place and only need to be enforced. The truth of the matter is totally different though, the checks and balances have been a thing of the past for a while now.

So again I claim the difference between "legal surveillance" and "illegal eavesdropping" no longer exists in reality.

In the US, the requirement is probable cause. You have not not only name at least one person, you have to provide evidence that the person is probably doing something wrong, or will probably provide evidence of something wrong being done. The courts then approve how the surveillance can be done: videotape when audiotaping is approved, and the evidence is unusable; check e-mail when surveillance of spoken telephone calls is okayed, and you might wind up with nothing. And with the people involved notified of the violation of their rights.

I don't know if Britain has a probable cause requirement.

.....to get a warrant even before the Patriot Act I and II. The show of "probable cause" is the easiest thing to show - just pick the right judge and "probable cause" will be an assured thing.

My point is that legal surveillance and illegal eavesdropping is a matter of words only when it comes to actual practice. Probable cause, warrants for eavesdropping, etc is easy enough to get if a person knows the judges they are dealing with. So in the real world there isn't much difference.