Replies

Do a search on a Supreme Court case called United States v. Truong, in which the court determined that under certain circumstances it was acceptable for wiretap surveillance to be conducted without a warrant. The content of the decision is not important (and may be irrelevant, since the Federal laws on this subject have changed somewhat since this decision was handed down in 1980). What is important is that you have the public record of a U.S. Supreme Court case -- in which the person who was the subject of the "warrantless" surveillance is identified by name -- that clearly demonstrates the use of such surveillance by the Federal government.

The public records related to the case of Columbus truck driver Iyman Faris -- who pleaded guilty last year to a number of charges related to a conspiracy to blow up bridges in New York City -- also clearly indicate that the U.S. Justice Department obtained much of the evidence against him in "unconventional" manners.

What the New York Times basically did was print an article about something that may not have been commonly known among the general public, but certainly was not "classified" in any way.

This is basically the equivalent of me warning you about a speed trap that the police have set up on a road somewhere.