One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
You can't really blame Clinton for that those
"a warrantless search still goes on a case by case basis since probable cause is required."
Clinton did not want it that way... learn how to read IDIOT!
"And for those who might ask precisely how he meant to "limit" freedom, Clinton offered the specific example of his "weapon sweeps" policy, which allowed police to invade people�s homes whenever they wished, without search warrants, in order to find and confiscate guns."
You can suppose anything you want, just like I can suppose you in uniform with a gun patrolling in Fallujah. But, a warrantless search still goes on a case by case basis since probable cause is required.
<How can you complain about the sincerity of someone else when you end all your insulting posts with the same insincere closing, "regards"?>
In your case Lookie, that should read 'retards'.
How can you complain about the sincerity of someone else when you end all your insulting posts with the same insincere closing, "regards"?
I mean how important can sincerity be to you with a throwaway line like that?
<I guess truth is unlike pornography in that not everyone knows it when they see it>
I know mental and/or written masturbation when I see it. You are not a serious or sincere person.
Hmmm...Alas I am disappointed again. Again both in your response and in your education. The word "rhetoric" has two definitions; 1) the art of effective speaking or writing, and 2) pretentious vacous speech. As we are communicating via the written word you would be in error applying that second definition to my posts but the first while certainly a more fitting description of my posts does not seem to capture your intended meaning.
As for your suggestion here goes:
My Position: You Sir are a Pompous Ass so sublimely esconced in your ignorance that the colloquialism "
My Factual Support: Everyone of your previous posts whether taken singly or as a collective whole.