Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (8328)	1/4/2006 3:50:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541556

Either a sloppy survey or one designed to obfuscate the real issue, IMHO. A realistic survey, methinks, sadly. I do think it's important to know whether the public thinks the president should be able to do this. Surveys are the only way to get at that. That needs to be factored in as well as the "real issue."

To: Dale Baker who wrote (8328)	1/5/2006 12:02:16 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541556

I have no idea how long it takes to get a federal warrant but on NPR they said a "couple of days" or "few days", something like that. There are already exceptions to the warrant requirement in the law of search and seizure for "exigent circumstances". Kind of a sliding scale, the graver the risk of harm, the looser the exception. Things have gotten a lot looser since I was in law school 20 years ago, too. This is an area of law that's in flux. When the Constitution was drafted, nobody foresaw electronic surveillance of, say, a fleeing felon crossing multijurisdictional lines or international lines with a cellular phone. Throw into your balance the unavailablility of judges because they are playing golf or at a party. I assume this because there ought to be judges available to issue warrants at any hour, if need be. The remedy to a warrantless search used to be the exclusionary rule -- which is a recent invention of the Warren court. Now that's being chipped away by "good faith" exceptions -- and the remedy in the future may be a civil rights lawsuit if your rights are violated -- not much of a remedy if you're guilty, but why let the guilty go free because the constable blundered?