If NSA broke Abramof, is domestic spying then OK?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

Absolutely not.
If there was an idea that a crime was being committed (or in Black Jack's case, multiple crimes) the only way to go was with warrants, court supervision and within the law.
Besides, his lawyers would have fought like the dickens, pitting them against the White House on the admissibility of illegally gathered evidence.

[Straight Shooter]

1. Abramoff is not a political enemy of the bush administration.

Yes, the root problem of spying without a warrant is it subjects any evidence obtained to a charge of being "fruit of the poisoned (poisonous) tree." Such evidence cannot be considered by a court or jury.

bush is really stupid.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. No, But. . .

. . .they would have had probable cause and gotten a warrant. My take on the NSA thing is that Silverspoon and his gang did not go to the courts because they KNEW what they were doing was illegal.

If they needed to spy on Abamhoff in the midst of a criminal investigation, any court would have given the ok. So, i think the question might be apples and oranges.
The Professor

[Inland]

3. Well, he pleads guilty.

He could have asserted that evidence had been illegally gathered, and he could still sue the government for damages.

Sounds like he didn't think it possible.

[Catrina]

4. Absolutely not

Wiretapping without a warrant is against the law. If that had happened, in any criminal case, the guilty person could go free.

Actually, I'm surprised they didn't think of that ~ to illegally spy on Abramoff, who made plenty of overseas trips and calls, to Europe, to Israel, to the Marianas Islands, to Guam etc., so that when he was eventually caught, he could get off on that little technicality. And he would have, as will others, who may be guilty, thanks to this stupid administration.