Replies

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?

What's the problem? The problem is that you only 'know' what conversations are being monitored without a warrant because someone tells you what is being monitored without a warrant. I'm guessing you probably believe those who claim that only conversations with suspected terrorists are being monitored. You probably believe it because you trust the people telling you that. Would you believe it if Hillary were telling you that?

Oh, for the record, I don't believe it now, either. Someone on behalf of our government - I think it was a guy subbing for McClellan - said that we are only listening in on people with a history of bombing churches, trains and weddings. Well, if there are folks here with that history, I'd hope we'd be getting arrest warrants, not monitoring phone calls without a warrant.

And if everyone being monitored is a bad guy, it is no problem to get a warrant. I'm glad you prefer having a shift supervisor make the call as to who can be monitored and who can't, but the FISA court is about as unobtrusive as due process could possibly be.