To: Owl_Eagle
What's missing is any indication of whether or not these additional surveillance efforts were extremely urgent (such that the time getting a warrant was an undue risk) or not. If its the latter, it seems to me like these sorts of operations would clearly be unconstitutional. THAT would be a HUGE problem for the prez...
To: eraser2005
It is not necessary for the government to prove the surveillance was necessary. It is implied by the fact they were carried out that they where. This article contains not one fact to show anything was done improperly. It is nothing but allegations backed by opinions from un named sources.
To: eraser2005
If its the latter, it seems to me like these sorts of operations would clearly be unconstitutional. THAT would be a HUGE problem for the prez...Oh, you can assume that if the losers are writing the story, it will always be the latter.
Of course, if the president runs over a pack of girl scouts in his SUV, THAT would be a HUGE problem for the president too.
But the accusation and the source of such a charge should never be the conclusive determinant. Specially not in the last 5 years!
84 posted on
12/16/2005 11:53:36 AM PST by
Publius6961
(The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson