Originally Posted by DVPGSR
I believe in the right to privacy, but if there is sufficient cause for a government agency to take a peak to see if what you are doing is legal and not a threat to the country, especially when time is of the essence, then I can see a need for this. However, it should be limited in scope and the rules for executing a surveilance like this need to be clear and agreed upon. It should also be used in rare situations.
The rules are pretty clear already, and FISA warrants can be issued retroactively. If time is of the essence, law enforcement is actually allowed to go ahead and peek first and ask for the warrant later. There's no reason not to get the warrant except if the person or agency spying thinks it would be denied.
Originally Posted by DVPGSR
I think we should also have a free press. However the press is not free to write about things that will impact national security. The idiot that wrote how we were listening to Osama's sattelite phone and made him change his methods should be charged. Writing that you disagree with Camp Gitmo or the War on Terror is not a crime. Exposing secret information on how the US gathers intelligence on those that would do us harm is.
Your example of the Japanese camps during WWII is something that is not a crime. Writing how we broke the Japanes naval codes would be.
Given the specific circumstances that you described above, you and I are in agreement.
Originally Posted by DVPGSR
As for property rights I am 100% for them. But if there is a good suspicion that you are involved in terrorist activities I do feel that something like your computer should be seized and looked at as part of the investigation. However, possesions such as your clothes, bed, dishes, TV, etc should not be taken. But if they want to take your car and see if you are hiding things in it or the trunk reaks of radiation then by all means they should be able to. But only if there is sufficient evidence to warrant such a search...and I do feel a warrant is necessary but like my answer above concerning privacy rights there should be clear rules of engagement when it can be done without court authority and again it should be rare.
You're right that there should be clear rules, and in fact there are. But seizing the property of a person who is suspected of a crime is not okay. If there is a good reason to seize property, then why hasn't the person already been arrested and charged with a crime?