Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dculkin
I see your point. I can't be sure, though, because medmech didn't specify what it is that he wants people to prove Clinton didn't do. If the issue is precedent, then I think the argument is weak because, if Clinton authorized warrantless searches of American citizens, those searches were probably illegal and therefore do not have precedential value.
Plus, medmech is ripping a page from someone's book, but I don't know what book that is. The Bush administration has admitted that it engaged in warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, although mikemover might deny that they admitted any such thing.
It would not surprise me one bit if the Clinton administration condoned warrantless searches of American citizens. That sort of thing probably goes on all the time. And it's wrong.
|
I haven't said it in several threads and I feel compelled to say it again: If this is a program targeting American citizens with warrantless searches it is wrong. I don't care how many other administrations did it previously. It violates the trust between government and governed in our social contract.
------ There. ------
But if it is a program targeting communication between citizens and non-citizens suspected of being enemies of the USA then we're in a different ballgame. I find it far, far less offensive if the eavesdropping is warrantless under those circumstances. I don't know squat about eavesdropping and know less about spy communication. But I read spy novels sometimes. I can imagine a bunch of bad guys purchasing say, 50 cellphone accounts each, and using them (randomly) to call each other (and also to make innocuous calls) from different locations. Track that. Separate the good guys from the bad guys and figure-out which are citizens and which are not.
Oh yeah, the bad guys are plotting mass murder in a time frame unknown to you.
Bot