Mike the Usurper wrote:
Your quote from Gorelick is the White House memo that flies directly in the face of over 200 years of US history.

Mike, you are arguing with me by making statements but you aren't offering any information to back up your position, so objectively I have no reason to believe you. In the process of trying to respond I did encounter the ACLU's document submitted to the hearing Gorelick testified at. It does reflect your underestanding of the issue. There seems to be room to disagree about this. The matter hasn't really been litigated in detail.

In general I'm inclined to sympathize with the ACLU's position. However, if you accept the basis for the arguement that electronic surveillance can occur without a warrant, which is that the 4th amendment is abiguous, I think that analysis applies regardless of the specifics. The idea that we can apply that analysis in one context and not apply it in another seems, to me, arbitrary.

Of course, I don't accept the arguement that electronic surveillance can occur without a warrant. I think that the degree to which we have a lower standard for electronic privacy is simply because its convenient and not because it really make sense. However, my crazy ideas about the law are neither here nor there...

RE: USNews.com: The White House says spying on terrorism suspects without court approval is OK. What about physical searches?