By both its bare language as well as intent, the Fourth Amendment is not a guarantee to be fee from "warrantless" searches and seizures..." (list of supporting arguments follows) One can bullet-point out good counter-arguments to each of those points - numerous legal commentators have done so, and it appears increasingly likely that we will soon get to watch the arguments from both sides presented again at congressional hearings.
I don’t thinks such debate will change many minds though – this debate is really, it seems to me, mostly between those who believe that physical security is the paramount concern, and those who believe that the most important point is that conditions of perfect security are possible only under conditions of perfect tyranny, and are more willing to surrender some security to maintain protections from abuses of governmental power.
IMO such preferences are more matters of temperament than logic, with the logical arguments marshaled after the fact in support of decision made below the level of rational decision, and the best we can hope for in such discussion is that it be conducted civilly, in the recognition that both side can be “right” given that they value the same things differently.
So to the extent I can sway opinion at all, I’d attempt to do so by pointing out under the logic of some of the Administration supporters - and apparently for some members of the Administration as well - there appears to be no limit whatsoever to Presidential power other perhaps that refusal by Congress to appropriate funds to pursue polices with which a majority of it’s members are in disagreement.
And that as in times past Parliaments have been reduce to such methods to control the excess of Kings and Queens possessed of various theories of unlimited executive powers, I suppose we may eventually be reduced to such methods here as well – though we used to have a IMO perfectly good Constitution which was specifically designed to avoid such difficulties before a majority of Amercing were frightened into abandoning it by a handfull of knife welding religious fanatics.
I don't recall anyone here advocating giving the President absolute power. That absurd at best.
In the world of intelligence their are times that persons living in the U.S. (Not all are Americans), innocent or guilty, may get involved in issues concerning National Security. The FISA court was set up to safeguard the process of protecting American from such intrusions.
When someone from within the country calls a known Terrorist in ,let's say, Pakistan planing in setting off a dirty nuke in the sears tower. The nuclear material is coming off a ship from ,let's say, Yeman in a port at Miami. Do you suppose we should ignore that? I would be waiting on the ship, terrorist and the FISA warrant at the same time. If they don't, the folks who didn't want the NSA to do their job, would be calling for the President's head.
My personal belief that terrorist and their facilitators have no rights. Their existence alone is a crime against humanity. Don't give my the "Freedom Fighter" crap, these guys want world domination, not freedom. If we find them here round them up legally, I don't want no lawyer getting them off.
As for the average American, if their is proof that they are being spied and tracked by the intelligence agencies I would call for impeachment myself. In this case I see a lot of people mixing apples & oranges in this situation. I am also weary of precedence that some future President may readily use this technology against political rivals. Right now E.O. 12333 outlaws that but it can be tossed by a future President.
