Replies

I guess that we speak different languages.

The 4th Amendment says that the right of the people against unreasonable searches SHALL NOT be violated. To acomplish that, warrants are required and they can only be issued after meeting certain criteria. That means that the government was required to jump through hoops.

Mere suspicion or even being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not enough to justify a search. There has to be probable cause, preferably some evidence, and a sworn affidavit before a warrant can be issued and a search conducted. How far afield we have drifted.

Therefore, for a search to be reasonable, a warrant must be issued. Any search without one is unreasonable by definition.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that there is case law that states the the damn government can do anything that they deem to be reasonable, but that doesn't make it right. And remember that when you argue for 'reasonable' you also argue for reasonable restrictions on your other rights.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Sorry your wrong. Take a look at the links I posted to you. Not all searches require a warrant. Never have, never will. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I've had enough con law courses over the years to know the parameters of the 4th amendment in this area. The government may make reasonable searches at reasonable times. Getting a warrant essentially guarantees (even though the defense can argue it wasn't reasonable or the details weren't correct, etc. and sometimes win)that the grounds are reasonable so it doesn't have to be completely litigated during trial.

In terms of electronic surveillance FISA has defined the search of US persons (not just US citizens) to require a warrant with exceptions. Read the act for the exceptions. However, Congress can not limit the inherent powers of another branch of government unless the right to limit it is in the Constitution. For example congress can limit what areas courts have authority over or specify areas or cases that the courts can't deal with.

There are several issues with the current case. The first is the inherent power of the president as Commander in Chief and the presidents sole authority in foreign affairs except for the advice and consent provisions for treaties. Congress' control is through the purse. In addition to the inherent powers of the president in both those areas Congress through the joint act that they passed after 9/11 gave the president even broader powers (read the act). A lot of those powers are explicit in the act but even more powers are implicit in the act.

The second issue is the listening that they were doing on international calls from and to known Al Quada operatives and agents to US Persons reasonable under the conditions that existed at the time. To and from non US Persons no warrant is required by FISA (it's in the act).

In addition to be covered by the FISA act the calls have to be intercepted within the United States (per the act). If they were intercepted in the UK, Australia and several other countries where we have major facilities no warrant is required per FISA since it only applies to calls intercepted within the US.

The president has a pretty strong legal position in my and many constitutional lawyers opinions in spite of what the media might say. The weakest one is the reasonableness argument. That's a matter of opinion and there are lots of shades of gray. What's reasonable depends on the situation at the time it occurs. In a war against a stateless enemy who operates world wide what's reasonable hasn't been defined.