Nope. I'm not being purposely obtuse about my own beliefs. The President should comply with statutory law, which means that American citizens may not be wiretapped without a warrant unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' The law doesn't say anything about those about whom there is suspicion, or those who may simply be talking to enemies or to phone numbers that were once used by enemies. It says US persons can only be wiretapped with a warrant, unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' Period.
And how will we know if only such persons are being wiretapped? By the due process afforded under the law.
Nope. I'm not being purposely obtuse about my own beliefs. The President should comply with statutory law, which means that American citizens may not be wiretapped without a warrant unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' The law doesn't say anything about those about whom there is suspicion, or those who may simply be talking to enemies or to phone numbers that were once used by enemies. It says US persons can only be wiretapped with a warrant, unless they are 'agents of a foreign power.' Period. The president should comply with the Constitution.
The ultimate measure of governmental searches and constitutionality is reasonableness.
I believe that it is reasonable to monitor known correspondence between people in this country and known terrorist organizations abroad.
I also believe that the Constitution gives the executive branch to the power to wage war minus a warrant. The Constitution doesn't give that power to a panel of judges.
And how will we know if only such persons are being wiretapped? By the due process afforded under the law.
A guarantee against government? As I said before, there are no guarantees. Heck, how will we know if the president we elect is not a crook? How will we know the president we elect isn't doing things behind our back. Let's just call off Constitutionally mandated elections.