Warrantless Searches ARe Fairly Routine

You state "If you spend some time looking into the history of this stuff you begin to see that it has been going on for a while now. There's nothing really that new here. So why are we all talking about it?"

That is a rediculous statement. Just because something is wrong and it's been going on for a long time is not justification to continue.

The NSA's job is to monitor OVERSEA'S communication and is expressly prohibitted from operating domesticaly unless they obtain a warrant from the "special" secret court. This has been in place for what, 26 years? In fact a judge that had presided over that court resigned yesterday in disgust at the fact that this policy has been circumvented. I don't care who the president is Dem or Rep, this conduct is wrong without following the legal steps and procedeures that are in place.

There is no situation Republican President or not in which the stepping on of our civil liberties can be considered "good".

There's nothing really that new here.

Spying on US citizens? Without warrants?

I'm really unclear as to what Rob Port's attempting to accomplish here. He already admits the criteria concerning warrantless surveillance aren't germane to Bush's transgressions. But, in the very next breath, Port tells us--in essence--everybody does it, as if repeating an illegality somehow renders it acceptable.

Bush is fond of saying the enemies of America "hate our freedoms."

Therefore, it's a bit foolish that anyone would defend eliminating those very freedoms.

Rob,
I'm not at all clear what good you think W has done. I hope you are not giving him credit for the election in Iraq. He vigorously opposed it before he favored it (a flip-flop) and the constitutional process and recent elections occurred when they did primarily because al-Sistani insisted on it. And the result of the election is that religious fundamentalists (think Iran) are in control.

Regarding the illegal wiretaps (yes, I'm calling them illegal even though nobody has been convicted in court, and may never be, given the Bush League's remarkable success getting around the Constitution) you have your head in a smelly place. Warrantless searches have frequently been found to be "reasonable," which is the Constitutional standard, but _wiretap searches_ have not. His abuse of FISA has led one judge to resign--I'll project here--in disgust.

W, the man who pledged to restore honor to the White House, lied about this just as he lied to get us into war. He is a man wholly without honor and his principles immoral

Rob's right on this one . . . every President since the Carter Administration has authorized warrantless searches. That's as far as Rob's rightness goes. Every President since the Carter Administration has either gone through the prescribed route (going to the special court) prior to the warrant being issued or . . . if they have done the search "prior" to the warrant they have applied to the special court within 72 hours which is a part of the 1978 law. This is the first time that any Presidential Administration has gone outside of the law in such a flagrant way. It just flat out hasn't happened before. So, we come back to the fundamental question . . . did President Bush break the law or not? I suspect we'll never know . . . I don't think this will ever see the light of a court room. So we are left with our own angst over how some of our highest elected officials go about business while holding thmeselves above the law. Every-day Joe . . . try and get away with that one.

Jim . . . It's not your projection . . . the judge did resign in disgust. Wouldn't it be great if the rest of them has the nuts to do the same?

Hey, the president himself said (in a speech in Buffalo, NY):

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order,..Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

(Quote comes from an AP story)

Rob Did you happen to actually look at the list you pointed to? Repetitive? Most of them are plain stupid. Warantless search of lawfully siezed property? What they are supposed to never look at what they seized? Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant; But of course but better make a case in less than a day. In fact almost all of those cases (the 29) are not warrantless at all but rather based on 'probable cause' and in all of those cases if the search was not done with 'prior' probable cause, what is found cannot be used or admitted in court.
For example: "Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);" Yes they can to the extent that they can check for drunkenness, or required safety features on the vehicle but they cannot search the whole vehicle unless something in the initial check gives them cause to lawfully seize the vehicle (like the driver being drunk).

In short these supposed 29 examples have basically nothing to do with the President's current problems.

Rob . . . Dan is right . . . and . . . this isn't about right-wing vs left-wing (liberal vs conservative or Republican vs Democrat). If Clinton (or any other President) did this sort of thing I'd be all over their case. Rob . . . lay off the egg-nog, do your research before you fire off these distorted postings.

It is against the law. Our president just admitted to an impeachable offense.
When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, I was warned repeatedly what would happen if the communists took over the United States. These warnings? Surveillance of the populace, no freedom of movement without proper papers, random searches, state seizure of property, ridicule and prosecution for dissent.

Sound familiar? It was not the communists, but the Radical Right that has taken control, but the outcome smells just as bad.

Rob,
Using the meanderings of an ideologue like Andrew McCarthy is not much support for your argument. Read the fourth amendment and you'll say that much of what he says is not covered. The biggest error he makes is leaving out the words "probable cause" in most of his 28 points. The statements about, cars, boats, the border and public buildings specifically are not covered by the Fourth. The other big point he should have covered is the exclusionary rule and how it could affect all of his 28 points.
As far as other presidents spying on citizens goes, the only place I've heard that mentioned is on programs hosted by right wing ideologues. Even if it was true, it would be illegal just as Bush's actions are illegal.
As far as whether he is spying on Americans or not, look up the NSA's Echelon program. They spy on everybody. It is a matter of what information is scrutinized and how that information is used. The reason most of us are condemning Bush is because we know he is a liar and has great disdain for the rule of law. In short, we don't believe him and we don't trust him.