Yes, it does. And how does it do that?

“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 other words, the law enforcement or executive branch of government is required to get a warrant from the judicial branch of government, and in order to get that warrant the law enforcement guys have to persuade a judge that they have a solid and legitimate reason to get the warrant.

The reason for this is to prevent government officials from using searches to harrass or intimidate citizens who, for example, are their political opposition, or to go on fishing expeditions for information they can use against their political opposition. That’s what the Watergate burglers were up to. J. Edgar Hoover routinely used to “bug” people just because he didn’t like their politics. In fact, the Bush administration wiretapped UN officials as part of an effort to get the head of the International Automic Energy Agency, who had publicly disagreed with the Bushies, replaced. They don’t need a warrant to wiretap foreign nationals, so this wasn’t illegal. But it shows that they are willing to use intelligence agencies for political purposes.

The FISA court was set up for wiretaps that have to be kept secret, so that the warrant would not appear in public record or be known to people without proper security clearance. It’s a safeguard to be sure the executive branch isn’t misusing wiretapping for political purposes. The Bush Administration has yet to provide a rational reason why they have bypassed even the FISA courts.

As I explained in the post, of course people who might be connected to terrorism should be put under surveillance. I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11 so I saw what terrorism can do, up close and personal. And the feds can wiretap foreigners without a warrant all they like. But when they wiretap citizens they need a warrant. That’s the law. All we’re asking for is that the President obey the law.

Anyone who claims that this is true is either a fracking idiot, or telling an outright lie.

So come on all you who love to call us righties, tell me how you lefties can complain about wiretapping when your icon FDR actually interned Japanese-American citizens into camps because we were at war with Japan. We listen to phone calls, you put people in prison, yet somehow we are leading this country back to the dark ages. Quit acting like your shit don’t stink, the lefties of this world have done far worse to limit peoples liberties in the name of progress.

The issue, to me at least, is NOT the fact that these searches were warrentless. You are correct that warrentless searches happen all the time. It may be that these particular warrentless searches were, er, warrented I guess. The issue is that they were done illegally. The issue is that for this particular type of search, our LAWS say that judicial oversight is REQUIRED … not optional, not at the whim of the president or anybody else, REQUIRED … and the president directed the NSA to go around that oversight process.

That alone would be bad enough. But if you take 10 seconds to consider the implications … WHY did the president feel he had to go around the oversight process? Certainly there are a FEW non-nefarious reasons, but only a few. That combined with this president’s documented habit of using (foreign, legal) surveillance for purely political purposes … how can you possibly just blow that off?

-me

I disagree with the U.S. v. Miller decision on banking records, to which you refer. We liberals believe that the Bill of Rights, esp. the 4th Amendment, protects a right to privacy. I’m sorry that you don’t, but you and your ilk are shoving us in the direction of a collective society in which every individual’s life is exposed to the all-powerful police state. And this will be accomplished one step at a time, and it will be done by persuading the cowards among us (like you) that it’s for our own good.

I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and witnessed the collapse of the WTC towers with my own eyes, yet I would not compromise so much as a punctuation mark in the Bill of Rights for the sake of “security.” Because, first, it’s false security — I have yet to see a reasonable argument why Bush’s searches weren’t done through FISA — and second, because the one thing we owe our country and our posterity is to leave liberty the way we found it; to keep it safe for future generations. If every generation of Americans had run screaming for Big Brother at every threat, we’d be living in a dictatorship now.

Not cowardly - just realistic.

Not realistic - just cowardly.

The IRS can look at my bank records any time it wants, without a warrant and WITHOUT letting me know about it.

Is this unconstitutional as well? Possibly. Does this chip away at my liberty? Of course. However, very few people have challenged this rule (other than some REAL nutcases), since every judge in the country would laugh it out of his courtroom.

My point is that warrantless searches happen all of the time in this country, and to make a large deal over this instance of it is laughable.

Not cowardly - just realistic.

TV (Harry)

Like I said, cowards. Whatever happened to “give me liberty, or give me death”? And the pathetic thing is, I sincerely doubt the chipping away at liberty is making us a bit safer. But thanks for confirming that you aren’t willing to risk your precious skin for liberty.

As for your other examples: When you go to an airport you consent to submitting to surveillance. You know you are under surveillance, and you know the extent to which you are being searched. If you don’t want to submit to the surveillance, you can find another mode of transportation.

Being subjected to secret wiretapping is on a WHOLE ‘nother planet.

Drunk driving pullovers, getting your bags searched at airports, and numerous other instances of you being searched without a warrant. All legal, with no howls from you guys about how the constitution is being shredded.

In the statement, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, did you notice that life comes first, and liberty second? Did it ever cross your mind that it was written that way by design?

Probably not.

TV (Harry)