[The_Eaglet]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- USC Amendment IV

If Brownback has questions about whether this was followed, he is on the right track.

[montag813]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

"The rights of people to keep radioactive materials in their homes and mosques to build weapons, and be free from detection by geiger counters used on public streets putside those homes, shall not be violated."

[sinkspur]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- USC Amendment IV

Key word "unreasonable." Is it unreasonable to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks by monitoring their communications into and out of this country?

[MNJohnnie]

Um NO. Sorry but the right to Constitutional Protections END when the person is in a state of insurrection against the Civil Govt. Aiding Terrorists changes them from Members OF, to Enemies of, our society. Please leave the Junior High School grasp of the Law out of the discussion. That FReeper have opinions and feeling what a Law MEANS is meaningless. GREAT, that you feel your interpretation is "the law". Unfortunately for you NO one in the Judiciary agrees therefore your feelings on what it means renders your opinions irrelevant.

[DaGman]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Sounds pretty clear and straightforward to me too.

[MNJohnnie]

Nice you have opinions about the law, pity for use they are such DUMB ones. Suggest you read the appropriate Statues and the Case History since you seem so arrogantly insist at on lecturing everyone around about "the law". Until you are a Judge and can actually impose your interpretations on people, your opinions about about the Constitution, are JUST that, YOUR opinions. Please stop confusing your feelings with facts.

[Morgan in Denver]

The key word in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable." Is it unreasonalble to search for information concerning a possible terrorist sympathizer who is willing to kill Americans, even if that person is a US citizen? Just a thought.

[MNJohnnie]

I sorry. Perhaps I did not make my self clear. Thank you for telling us your feelings on this matter, too bad they are meaningless

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not surprisingly, the Conservatives are supporting Ramsey Clark's tactics when these are used by Bush.

[MNJohnnie]

That's right CLING to your feelings, ignore the Case History and the Statures. Your feelings define reality the facts are MEANINGINGLESS becuase YOU do not feel them to be correct.

[MNJohnnie]

I'm sorry that you seem confused by this. Simply screaming your opinion over and over doesn't suddenly turn them into facts if you simply increase frequency and volume. They are still meaningless.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

If Brownback has questions about whether this was followed, he is on the right track

Where was Brownback at during the abuses of the Clinton administration?

[nwrep]

USC Amendment IV

The USC is not a suicide pact. When the Republic is threatened, the USC cannot be used to restrain the POTUS who, in his capacity as the CinC, is trying to defend the Republic from our enemies.

[MNJohnnie]

Well I see you still do not get it.

[pissant]

Hmmmm. Is it "unreasonable" to tap the communications of some a**hole who we find in Zarwahiri's Rolodex? And is GWB's "oath" as CIC during a war not enough justification?

If you think the above, just know it has been violated in every war since our founding.

[MNJohnnie]

There is a reason why your party cannot even elect ONE official at ANY level.

[MNJohnnie]

Gee sorry your feeling are hurt. Get over it. YOUR personal opinion of the law is irrelevant. YOU do not have any standing in the matter. We, the people, DO NOT agree with your opinions. It doesn't become illegal for our society, via our agent the Govt., to defend ourselves from those in a state of insurrection against civil authority, because YOU personally object to our defending ourselves!

Sorry the fact that these people went from being members of, to enemies of, our society is so utterly difficult for you in the closet Democrats to grasp. Just because YOU say something "is illegal" does not make it so. Guess you are just practising the old Commie tactic of screaming a lie over and over and over in the hope SOMEONE will believe your lie true?

[CA Conservative]

This has never been a 4th amendment issue, but a national security issue. The courts have consistently supported the President's right to collect intelligence for national security purposes without a warrant. The only time a warrant is required is if a criminal prosecution is the goal. The FISA court was set up as a mechanism to allow information gathered through intelligence resources to be shared with law enforcment by setting up a "secure" method of obtaining a warrant.

[oldbrowser]

If Brownback has questions about whether this was followed, he is on the right track.

Are you volunteering American rights to Al Qaeda ?

[Mercat]

I do trust Bush with this power but Hillary? that's a different matter... remember her and her enemies list... basement of the Whitehouse, etc.