Replies

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.

And your statement is founded on the assumption that the only warrantless wiretaps authorized by the Administration involve people in this country talking to known terrorist organizations abroad.

I'll bet you $20 that, if we ever find out anything about the scope of this program, that will not turn out to be the case.

What's your position on warrantless wiretaps of US citizens making calls to telephone numbers which were called at some time in the past by persons who are simply under suspicion of being connected with a terrorist group abroad?

Because I'll bet you another $20 we are doing that, too.

What's your position on warrantless wiretaps of US citizens making calls to relatives in Middle Eastern countries who have also been called by other distant relatives who are thought to have ties to charities which are believed to finance terrorist organizations?

'Cause I'll bet you another $20 we are doing that, too.

How far removed does it have to be before you say "enough - that ain't part of any inherent 'war power'"?