[fintstone]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Seems like a pretty simple question, right? Seems like someone should be able to give a simple one or two sentence answer to this simple question.

"We could have gotten warrants after the fact, but we did not because ...."

But the American people won't get an answer. And some, if this board is any guide, won't care one bit that the president won't answer this quesiton.

No matter how much you like or respect a particular politician, no matter how much you agree with his or her policies, no matter how much you admire his or her honesty and integrity, do not place that person above the law. It is a dangerous, reckless, and unnecessary assault on our liberty.

You might not like or admire the next politician so much. And the guy after that, you probably won't like at all, but you'll be powerless to do anything about it.

That one is simple.
"We could have gotten warrants after the fact, but we did not because ...."it was not required.

There are far more emanations to monitor than resources to do so. If the agencies had to apply for warrants before...or even afterward, the millions of pieces of paper would require thousands of more personnel and billions of dollars to staff. Clearly we would have to reduce our efforts and the nation would be much less secure....and...of course, the law did not require it.

I am curious which of your liberties you are claiming were unnecessarily assaulted. Are you worried that monitoring radiation levels in the US will somehow prevent your "constitutional right" to build nuclear weapons? ...or your phone calls to Osama might become public?