President Bush wiretapping warrantless

My spell checker informs me the word is unwarranted. Forgive my Crawford-Kennebunkport pidgin, I’m loving the intented-less poetic justice. Bush’s wiretapping is warrantless.

For law enforcement to search a house, to otherwise contravene a citizen’s protection from unwarranted search or seizure, it must be given a search warrant. That is to say, you must seek a judge’s agreement that such action is warranted. Often this consent is merely a rubber stamp, but the procedure does inhibit swat teams from advancing over citizens like an invading army.

Likewise for wiretapping, intelligence agents can eavesdrop neither pell-mell nor wholesale. They are restricted to poking into private affairs for which they’ve shown a judge they would have probably cause to do so.

To discuss President Bush’s NSA spying activities as needing no warrant is to expose a delightful single-entendre. Warrantless? Yes they are. Unwarranted. Without warrant or cause. Of no merit, legally. No justification, certainly.

Bush’s wiretaps are: Not reasonable or right, uncalled-for, unjustifiable, unreasonable.

Bush’s wiretaps are: Incapable of being justified or explained, indefensible, insupportable, unjustifiable, unwarrantable.

Bush’s wiretaps are: Without a basis in reason or fact, baseless, groundless, idle, unfounded.

Bush’s wiretaps are: Lacking justification or authorization, undue, unjustified.

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)
Eric Verlo

About Eric Verlo

On sabbatical
This entry was posted in Semantics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *