“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.“

In short:
I think that this would tend to support the president’s position on the NSA for two reasons:
1) it would be reasonable to expect the commander in chief to eavesdrop on enemy communications during a time of war.
2) is this quote, “Exceptions to the warrant requirement have multiplied, tending to confine application of the requirement to cases that are exclusively ”criminal” in nature.” Obviously waging war is not a criminal matter.

It may not fit well with liberty but then wars generally do not. If we are going to fight a war, and this war needs to be fought, and won, then we shouldn’t fool around.

My guess would be McCarthy…

I would argue that every NSA search, must first get FISA Court approval by submitting:
1) a list of the communication nodes to be monitored,
2) an adequately detailed summary of the American citizens and organizations that would be affected, 3) the search terms to be used,
4) the names of all individuals who will be involved in implementing the search and gathering results,
5) suitable documentation that the search was conducted as orderd (search logs)

Thus the FISA court would have the means to limit or reject the NSA’s use of automated searches on a case-by-case basis, while ensuring that records of every search will be reviewed (and kept) by the court to protect against abuse.

When the “conservative” response is to criticize a paraphrase of a well-known quote without addressing any of the substance of the matter, that speaks for itself.

Phone lines aren’t private, they are controlled by commercial businesses. Unless you have the money to string your own wire. Most people assume their phone conversations are private because the phone companies respect the right of privacy for people. Otherwise, no one would use phones. Privacy needs trust to work. We trust the postal service to not open our mail. We trust the phone companies not to listen to our conversations. We trust airlines in not revealing the locations we are traveling to.

The government is playing a dangerous game with the people by entering what the people call their right to privacy.

For all other searches, they require (supposedly) warrants, which is subject to a probable cause requirement. One would think that wiretaps would necessitate a warrant.

What is the difference between the TSA searches and the wiretappings?

Well the obvious one. In one you are making your own personal decision to get on a commercial plane. And the other you are merely talking on your private phone line.

In any event, the NSA argument is bullshit. Mere reasonableness is an exception to the rule, and a limited one at that. The “War on Terror” is not a sufficient exigent circumstance to justify eviscerating the Constitution, especially when there’s not even a scintilla of oversight for the program. Maybe I should modify that. The NSA Inspector General is overseeing the actions of “career professionals within the NSA.”

Don’t you feel safer?

- The first amendment covers several different issues (speech, press, religion, assembly).

- RKBA advocates have argued that the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment does not restrict or otherwise impact the proscription against arms restrictions.

-The fifth amendment includes indictments and double jeopardy, and anti-self-incrimination, and takings. Does that mean that they can only take your farm if you’ve been indicted, once, and not been forced to testify against yourself?

On the other hand, the last time I looked, the Constitution included no enumerated wiretap power … at all.

Tom Knapp

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) pressed Hayden on this point. “Does NSA spy on the lawful activities of Americans?” she asked.

“No. The answer is we do not,” Hayden said.

The above quote is from the Congressional Record, page S9350[1], dated September 13, 2001. It originally appeared in a Washington Post Magazine article titled TEST OF STRENGTH, July 29, 2001, by Vernon Loeb. (This is cut from a post at my blog[2].)

1. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=s9350&dbname=2001_record
2. http://donsobservs.blogspot.com/2006/01/food-for-thought.html

I’m not comparing TSA searches to NSA eavesdropping, but I am saying that a TSA search, without a warrant, can happen because of the way the 4th Amendment is written. Pulling you over for a broken tail light and then searching your car because the cop thinks you are “acting suspicious” can happen as well, and be upheld by the law. Searching your car with a drug dog during a traffic stop was upheld by the Supremes as well. The Supreme Court has clearly said that many warrantless searches are fine as long as they are “reasonable”.

The position of Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence is an appointment by the President. It is like a judge being appointed to the supreme court. The President picks a person then the senate must approve. As far as I know, you can not impeach a supreme court judge so there is probably no way to impeach the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

What is the difference between the TSA searches and the wiretappings? Both searches invade my person. A search into my person, my belongings and my speech should have a probably cause because in the courts I am innocent until proven guilty. This assumes the crime has already happened. The government is assuming you are guilty before a crime has occured. Everyone is a terrorist until searches prove otherwise. This is why prevention can be harmful to freedom.

If so, impeach away. The guy clearly shouldn’t be in the position he is.