[lugsoul]

This President's concerns are not the question, no matter how many times folks express their trust and confidence in him. The question is whether this kind of program would be a good idea under the worst President you could imagine.

If you don't want Hillary, or someone like her, to have unfettered surveillance capability, then you shouldn't be complacent about this President having it.

[mosquitobite]

Well said.

[Wolfie]

If you don't want Hillary, or someone like her, to have unfettered surveillance capability, then you shouldn't be complacent about this President having it.

As one Freeper pointed out to me yesterday, we'll just change the laws once a Democrat is in office. Yeah, right.

[FreeReign]

If you don't want Hillary, or someone like her, to have unfettered surveillance capability, then you shouldn't be complacent about this President having it.

It would be reasonable for a CIC -- even Hillary -- to minitor conversations with Al Qaeda without a warrant.

It would be unreasonable for a CIC -- including Hillary -- to monitor other conversations without a warrant.

What's the problem?

[NCLaw441]

You said: If you don't want Hillary, or someone like her, to have unfettered surveillance capability, then you shouldn't be complacent about this President having it.
***

The problem with this sort of analysis is that most people wouldn't want Hillary to have ANY power, which would support a constitutional amendment eliminating the presidential powers now possessed. How about looking at it from the other end of the barrel-- With what sort of person should we entrust these wide-ranging powers? Not Hillary, not a dem of any kind, save perhaps Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.