Can't get to your link at work.
But on this topic, terms need to be defined.
1) wiretapping. Is that limited to wires? Or does it cover eavesdropping on radio signals from cellphones, satelites, microwave, etc. The Supremes have consistently held that nobody using radio signals can reasonably expect privacy because that privacy is technically impossible, which is why signals are scrambled, encrypted, etc.
2) Unreasonable Search and Seizure. The 4th only prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The 4th does not prohibit reasonable search and seizure.
Is it reasonable to search phone calls (wire or other) from Al Kaeda? From a 3 time child molestor on parole?
I think congress should define what is reasonable and unreasonable with a 10 year sunset on that definition? Who thinks the president or Courts should define the terms?
Is there a "rule of law" objective definition of reasonable or is it totally subjective... it is reasonable to search people I can get away with searching but not those I can't get away with searching because they have too much clout or access to clout?
It is clear, with very little research, that the Bush Administration has every legal, moral and responsibility foundation covered and adhered to. This is nothing less than yet another hypocritical act of desperation by the liberals in this country.
I meant precedent. Sorry, I always do this.