|
Ustwo, you are mischaracterizing the response of many of the posters to the thread. You switched from "hoping" someone would be set free, to "thinking someone should be set free." I have yet to see anyone jump up and down with joy over the idea of terrorists, or questionable terrorists being set free. What I have read supports the position that some posters think that a given US citizen would have to be let free if their 4th Amendment rights were violated, pursuant to the various stipulations.
I can appreciate your position that you don't care if the law was broken, although you don't see that it was or believe it have been, due to the fact that you feel it is the nation's best interest. There are two clear possibilities. 1. Law was broken, and that has consequences. 2. Law was not broken, end of discussion. From what I've seen from reading about the authorization, that's a very broad interpretation to say that Congressional authorization to use necessary force in response to the terrorist threat of 9/11/2001 covers the abrogation of the 4th Amendment rights of US citizens, but I suppose we shall see.
I personally am glad this debate occurs, regardless of the outcome. Its the only way for our liberties to remain intact in a de facto sense. I am not worried about this giving away our "playbook" to terrorists, so to speak. The only terrorists / bad guys who would be ensnared by phone conversations are those too stupid to be aware of the prevalent case law regarding wire taps. If these idiots thought about it for a second, they wouldn't discuss it over the phone in the first place.
In short, if the administration or the Congress or the intelligence agencies feel they must break the law to stay one step ahead, then that's a decision they have to make. When they make that decision, they are (to be redundant) breaking the law, and there are consequences to those actions.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|