I was responding to your logic which was, and is, faulty.
Look, these things have already been hashed out. Time of war, communications involving enemy parties outside the U. S., intelligence officers monitor communications and discover terrorism plans that require immediate action. Waiting for a warrant would delay any action beyond the time of the planned terrorism.
Yet, your opinion was that we shouldn’t be allowed to wiretap UNLESS we have an extraordinary time sensitive situation, which means, the situation cannot wait for a warrant.
But if we’re not allowed to wiretap without a warrant, then we would not know about those time sensitive plans until AFTER the terrorists have put the plans into action.
With that in mind, just how does your plan work to protect us? Or are you only concerned with picking up the bodies later?
I think the poster was refering to the time it takes to get the wiretap, not the time-sensitivity of the info obtained.
>>Yet, your opinion was that we shouldn’t be allowed to wiretap UNLESS we have an extraordinary time sensitive situation, which means, the situation cannot wait for a warrant.
But if we’re not allowed to wiretap without a warrant, then we would not know about those time sensitive plans until AFTER the terrorists have put the plans into action.
With that in mind, just how does your plan work to protect us? Or are you only concerned with picking up the bodies later?<<
I do see your point.
Can you see my point that a similar argument to extending warrantless searches to other areas?