Librarians turned snitch?

[Name]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I really don't know the answer to the warrant question. All I can say, and this is not intending to justify anything based on the past, is that it is apparent that this is the M.O. with certain national security issues. Why, I have no idea.

But, it hasn't been the M.O. on DOMESTIC spying, just foreign.... even as Clinton's Executive Order pointed out....

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Name

But, it hasn't been the M.O. on DOMESTIC spying, just foreign.... even as Clinton's Executive Order pointed out....

I'm not convinced that the targets were domestic, unless they were in contact with known terrorist suspects.

[Name]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm not convinced that the targets were domestic, unless they were in contact with known terrorist suspects.

And its impossible to be a law abiding citizen, and unknowingly have contact, maybe even a friendship with a person the state considers to be a terrorist? So by that unknown association, you then become a terrorism suspect, as well as everyone that you know as well.... So conversations and stuff that shouldn't be recorded, cataloged, and archived without a warrant, now are because you know someone that the state thinks is a terrorist, unbecknownst to you.... that sir, is the things that make this wrong... and needs to be looked at by the congress and the courts...

[scaeagles]

I actually do not have a problem with that. Sorry, but if you are in contact with terror suspects, even if that is not known to you, then surveillance is not unreasonable.

[Name]

In my opinion, yes it is, especially without a warrant.... it provides the beginnings of a slippery slope of more violations of rights... and whats to say, they hear a conversation of a private nature of you(just a place holder, don't mean you specifically) talking with a good friend about you catching your son smoking pot... the next thing you know there is a knock on your door from your local friendly DEA agent who wants to search your home for illicit drugs, and since they have you talking about it on tape, they don't need a wartant anymore, as they could probably argue probable cause, after all, your son might be dealing too unknown to you.... and the government is only out to protect you and the community from yourself... this is the possible end result of the slippery slope that you do not find unreasonable... after all, since you have a friend that is a terrorism suspect unbecknownst to you, all your rights are now belong to the government...

[Alex]

What is interesting is that there is apparently no concern with warrantless surveillance of any and all electronic communications outside of the United States.

So the legal solution is simple:

We monitor all coversations in Canada and Canada monitor all conversations in the United States. If either country finds something suspicion they let the other intelligence agency know about it and traditional legal investigation can begin (or we could just turn a blind eye when the RCMP launches anti-terrorist missions into the United States to take our suspicion chatters).

[Name]

I would love to comment on that idea, but, don't think it would be wise for me to do.... given my past positions.......

[Prudence]

One of my (now former) co-workers is in federal detention prior to deportation on misdemeanor drug charges because they haven't been able to prove the terrorism link they suspect.

So, you think it's reasonable that I should now be under constant surveillance by the government? I'm quite disturbed to learn that you feel my privacy should be dismissed so easily.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I will say again.....

I know... I LOVE that about you.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I do not like that this is happening.

Check! With you so far.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My point is that everyone is acting so shocked that it is happening. It is nothing new.

And here's where we go off track. If I understand you, you are saying that ordering wiretaps on domestics without court orders is common practice in the White House. Is that what you're saying? Stop me here if it's not.

OK, then... Produce your evidence. I've never seen evidence suggesting previous presidents mentioned here have ordered wiretaps on domestics without the benefit of court involvement. If you can show this is common practice, let's see your research and let the chips fall where they may.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You don't see me being hard on Clinton or Carter about it. Again, my point is that everyone who seems so shocked KNOWS it has gone on.

No, sorry. You, and you alone, are alleging this is common practice. I'm asking you to back up that assertion.

[scaeagles]

Ever hear of Aldrich Ames? CIA guy giving secrets to the Russians. US citizen. Not one warrant issued in the entire investigation, including searches of his home.

I am certainly not defending Ames. In defense of their practices, legal council (this happened under Clinton) said that the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrentless searches" in areas of national security.

What exactly does "inherent authority" mean? It can only mean that the authority comes from the Constitution.

And just for fun, here's a nice link to a story which goes into a radio address by Clinton that authoized warrntless searches in crime ridden housing projects. No foreign intelligence application here -

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm

By the way, I do not believe that either OSHA or the EPA requires any sort of warrant to inspect private property. Also, if you own a gun shop, you can be inspected by law enforcement at any time with no warrant issued.

Prudence, I am not sorry to say that yes, if you are in phone contact with known terrorists, I am fully in support of you being monitored.