A good frame to consider

[Mythsaje]

One of the callers into a radio show some time back (it was either Thom Hartmann or Ed Schultz) mentioned that we should stop saying "warrantless eavesdropping" and start saying "unwarranted eavesdropping." While both are certainly true, the latter carries an extra bit of zing, since we have no real idea how many of the wiretaps or other snoops they've performed has any real basis...how many are, indeed, unwarranted and thus a waste of resources and taxpayer money.

[yurbud]

1. I started to write it that way once and thought the second meaning diluted

the legal one.

[Sammy Pepys]

2. I like that one....

good idea.

[bryant69]

3. I don't know

I see the point - and it is clever, but isn't the obvious come back "So you're saying we don't have any reason to be Eavesdropping on Al Qaeda?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mythsaje]

5. They already say that...

I say "PROVE that they're only eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. What? You can't?

That's my point."

[CrispyQ]

4. How about 'illegal wiretapping.' --nt

[Fridays Child]

6. Unconstitutional eavesdropping or wiretapping?

Illegal eavesdropping or wiretapping?

I just wish the meme strongly conveyed the unassailable fact that what B*sh did constitutes an illegal and impeachable offense. "Warrantless" and "unwarranted" don't push that message well enough, imho. So, what's a warrant? A mere technicality? Obviously not. But do most people really understand that? For many, I fear that that it's a leap from "no warrant" to "against the law."

[Katherine Brengle]

7. I actually think the 1st sounds better--it isn't as good as "illegal...

wiretapping" but "warrantless" makes it sound as if the wiretapping/surveillance was entirely without merit, and that is a good thing.

"Unwarranted" just seems kind of lukewarm to me...

:)