The 4th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy and deems warrantless searches illegal. So how does "W" think he can beat the constitutuion?
Of course the constitutional argument may be made moot, after "W" and his Abramoffed Senate stacks the Supremes with his personal idealogues.
And I quote; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Of course these words were penned by the radicals of their day.
"If the act is covered by the law, then we should follow the law."
Well...Bravo...for stating the obvious.
But what if there is some difference of opinion as the whether a particular law covers a particular act under certain circumstances?
What if the law in question attempts to usurp powers granted to the President by the Constitution?
What if two laws may conflict?
You trivialize a complex separation of powers issue with the simple platitude "..we should all follow the law".
>> I assume you expect US soldiers should do ...
Let me guess, the answer is yes. We still have something called the "law". Don't we? If the act is covered by the law, then we should follow the law.
"...doing the grand poobahs dirty work."
Since its IRA babbling, I assume you mean Bush.
And I guess you deem trying to track terrorist communications "dirty work". Well, thank goodness someone is willing to do it.
I am under the impression that warrants for eavesdropping/wiretapping/internet snooping, etc was an issue impacting those american residents living on american soil.
I can see by your enlightening soliloquy that it would impact any and everyone, no matter where he was doing the grand poobahs dirty work.
"Are you implying a revolution is over the horizon and that you expect US soldiers to be fighting US citiznes on US soil?"
lol...this one is a real joke. The only element of our society that is unhappy now is the screaming Left. The chances of that crowd leaving its Hollywood cocktail party to start an actual fight is zero! And who's gonna lead that army of speech-a-fiers...Al Gore, Howard Dean?
What is the world was that ramble about? Where do you get such silly questions? They do an injustice to the seriousness of the real issues.
Number one...we are not wiretapping US citizens on US soil. We are intercepting international communications....try to keep up.
"We expect the insurgents to acount for our captives/prisoners,..."
Of course we don't. We'd like them to, it would be nice, but no one that has watched terrorist behead civilians would "expect" them to obey the "rules of war".
You are so wrapped up in Bush-Bashing that you cannot examine a serious security issue with a clear mind.
Are you implying a revolution is over the horizon and that you expect US soldiers to be fighting US citiznes on US soil?
The warrants would be used wire tapping American residents on American soil, not on a foreign battlefield.
POW's should be accounted for, period. The Red Cross would maintain the list. All those guys in Guantanamo and those nice little inns the CI A is alleged to be running in Poland and eastern Euirope should be accounted for.
We expect the insurgents to acount for our captives/prisoners, or do have we just thrown them to the wolves?
What about the Mexican Army's excursions over our common border, if we catch a bunch of them escorting drug or people smuggling teams into the CONUS do we notify the Mexican govt. I don't think "W's muy bueno amigo, Vincente would be very happy with that turn of events.
So, since you all like to deal in the extremes to argue against "warrantless" searches. I assume you expect US soldiers on the battlefield to:
1) obtain a warrant before searching a house, hut, cave, rat hole, or bunker for enemy troops, weapons, explosives, plans, etc.,
2) preclude US forces from intercepting radio, flag, light, or any communications between enemy forces without a warrant naming the specific persons carrying out the communications, and
3) release any captured enemy troops who were taken into custody without a warrant that specificlly named them.
And knowing the liberal mind, I assume you want all these warrants to obtained from the World Court.
You either purposely misstate my position, or you are attempting to be humorous (and failing).
A search is reasonable if there is "probable cause". The concept is straightfoward. The only issue is whether or not a warrant should be required in all cases. Probable cause exist indenpedently of the warrant, which requires the showing of probable cause to an independent issuer.
But, surely even you can understand, that the probable cause precedes, and can exist, without the warrant.
Try to set aside your anti-Bush bias for a minute, and think through the issue.
And please don't bring up "torture" which I never condoned, or even mentioned. That is an IRA technique of debating....you should be above that.
A search is "unreasonable" if it finds
nothing or nothing but political dirt, but "reasonable" if it finds terrorist activities?
The end justifies the means, right?
Torture is OK if you get "results", but not OK if the poor bastard either did not know what you expected him to know or simply had guts enough to stand up to the cattle prod or give you lies! ...
You and DubYa really DO think alike!