>>Yet, your opinion was that we shouldn’t be allowed to wiretap UNLESS we have an extraordinary time sensitive situation, which means, the situation cannot wait for a warrant.
But if we’re not allowed to wiretap without a warrant, then we would not know about those time sensitive plans until AFTER the terrorists have put the plans into action.
With that in mind, just how does your plan work to protect us? Or are you only concerned with picking up the bodies later?<<
I do see your point.
Can you see my point that a similar argument to extending warrantless searches to other areas?
I understand that it appears to be similar, but it isn’t. It the present case, we’re talking about foreign enemies, terrorists, plotting to do a large amount of damage, death , and destruction, to Americans, while we are effectively in a state or war with these terrorists.
In the general case of warrants, they are covered well by the 4th Amendment, and have been since the adoption of the Constitution with the first 10 amendments. That protection, if you would, does not apply to foreign terrorists on foreign soil speaking with U. S. citizens. That’s why we needed the FISA legislation, to deal with those circumstances.
The two are not related very strongly, even though warrants are involved with both.
IMO.