[wagglebee]

I think if the FBI wants to monitor a person's mail or phone calls or anything else they should get a warrent from a judge, if not forget it.

[proxy_user]

My return address:

Santa Claus
69 Reindeer Way,
North Pole, NY
10001

Well, that's what's on the outside of the envelope.....really, how dumb do they think evildoers are?

[MikefromOhio]

There has to be evidence so that there is a warrant and therefore, due process.


Otherwise, they can monitor all they want, but it won't mean anything because they won't get a conviction out of it....

[NJ_gent]

I agree, but I think I'd have to add that they shouldn't be getting warrants from rubber-stamp courts like the FISA court. I'd like actual due process; not always secret always one-sided arguments in front of a secret court that virtually always grants whatever the FBI wants, except in cases where it recognizes plain and obvious lies (like the first time the FISA court refused a warrant request - though that too was later overturned by the FISA appeals court).

[mysterio]

Once again, the government is using the term "terrorism" to grant itself the unchecked power it has wanted all along. Power expressly prohibited by the Constitution. As soon as someone can show me where the asterisks is next to the first ten amendments and the footnote that says "except to catch drug dealers or terrorists," I cannot support giving the government these powers.

[Doctor Raoul]

Since mail covers do not disclose the contents, I don't believe a warrant is necessary, IMHO. It's like visiting the person's house, you made yourself visible.

My father had a mail cover implememted on a fugitive's wife's mail when the little bastard kept send death threats to our house from Liberia.