[Ramius]

Of course you don’t have to explain it. That’s because there is nothing in the Patriot Act that says they don’t need a warrant to search anybody’s house. They still gotta have a warrant.

Now, with arrests... you know already that arrests can be made on scene without a warrant. That’s never been a requirement for arrests.

[Minus_The_Bear]

"Of course you don’t have to explain it. That’s because there is nothing in the Patriot Act that says they don’t need a warrant to search anybody’s house. They still gotta have a warrant."

__________________________________________

You are either confused or don't know what you are talking about. Agents can write their own warrants before or after the fact.

This is a slippery slope and leads to what we are seeing now with the Indiana Supreme Court.

[mad_as_he$$]

You are wrong:

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA “Warrantless Wiretapping”) concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the “terrorist surveillance program”,[1] part of the broader President’s Surveillance Program, the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. Critics, however, claimed that it was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and their handling of several hot button issues during its tenure.