ACLU members, please explain?

[DasBoot]

the complete disregard and contempt George Bush and company have displayed for the United States Constitution.

This was posted by KowBoy.
I suppose there are other ACLU members here besides him.
I'm not all that politically saavy so I would really appreciate a DETAILED explanation of the above quote.
And keeping in mind we are doing battle with an enemy that desperately wants to destroy us, how would the ACLU members propose we address the problems

George Bush and company

were trying to address when they supposedly ran afoul of the US Constitution.
Things like:
How would you make airline travel safer w/o profiling?
How would you make subway travel safer w/o out random searches?
How would you compile data on domestic and international terrorist operations w/o listening in on phone calls made to/from KNOWN terrorists to/from individuals in the US.
I only mention the above 3 because these have seemed to elicit the most attacks on the administrations attempts at national security.
But perhaps the ACLU's plan would address these issues more effectively.
Personally, I applaude the use of all of the above tactics in order to help protect the citizenry of this nation.
And PLEASE don't quote Ben Franklin!
All of the above amount to nothing more than a possible inconvenience.
But again, perhaps the ACLU has a more effective plan and I would LOVE to hear it.

 

[GoSlash27]

DB,
I'm not sure what more detail you'd need to explain the first quote.

As far as how ACLU 'members' would attack the problems differently, I can't speak for the others or the ACLU itself.
*I* would propose the following:

How would you make airline travel safer w/o profiling?

Allow passengers to fly armed at their own discretion where such weapons do not pose a threat to airworthiness.

How would you make subway travel safer w/o out random searches?

Stop the random searches completely. That way nobody knows who's armed and who's not. You might also try following leads and searching actual suspects instead of random Americans.

How would you compile data on domestic and international terrorist operations w/o listening in on phone calls made to/from KNOWN terrorists to/from individuals in the US.

Do the same thing they're doing now. Hell, follow the calls around the country too. All you have to do is get a warrant. You don't even need to wait for it!

But perhaps the ACLU's plan would address these issues more effectively.

The ACLU isn't a "planning" agency, it's a watchdog group. They don't care how the government chooses to tackle problems so long as it's constitutional.

Now it's your turn:
1: What makes you think profiling makes airline travel safer? Would profiling have stopped Richard Reid?
2: What makes you think random searches make subway travel any safer?
3: Why is it impossible to track suspect communications legally?

And as long as we're asking loaded questions, I've got a few more:

Are travelers the only Americans who deserve safety at all costs? Terrorists are known to attack groups of people wherever they might be. Why don't we go ahead and randomly search people at the mall, or Wal-Mart, or in their own homes?
You want to be safe, right? The Constitution is less important than safety, right?
Guns are inherently dangerous, and terrorists have been known to use them. Since we're suspecting everybody without cause, maybe we should go door-to-door and round them up just to be safe. And while we're at it, we could probably fight terrorism more effectively if we could catch them moving around. Say, give everybody an itinerary card and institute a curfew (just for the duration).

How far would you like to go? What price are you willing to pay for the illusion of safety?

 

[DasBoot]

GS,
My initial question I would think is pretty obvious.
I have yet to be shown how the Constitution has been violated.

And as long as we're asking loaded questions

Why are you so defensive?
How are my questions "loaded"?
And for what?

The ACLU isn't a "planning" agency

I never said they were.
But they have been rather vocal about the points I brought up, hence my di1

: What makes you think profiling makes airline travel safer? Would profiling have stopped Richard Reid?

Maybe not.
But it might've stopped Atta and his boys, and 3000 Americans would still be alive today.
I guess you'd prefer to do nothing rather than things that just might have an effect.

2: What makes you think random searches make subway travel any safer?

Same as above.
Without searches, the possibility of finding a BG is zero.
With random searches,coupled with profiling, at least there IS a possibility, regardless of how slim.
Is a few minutes of your time too much to sacrifice?

Are travelers the only Americans who deserve safety at all costs? Terrorists are known to attack groups of people wherever they might be. Why don't we go ahead and randomly search people at the mall, or Wal-Mart, or in their own homes?
You want to be safe, right? The Constitution is less important than safety, right?
Guns are inherently dangerous, and terrorists have been known to use them. Since we're suspecting everybody without cause, maybe we should go door-to-door and round them up just to be safe. And while we're at it, we could probably fight terrorism more effectively if we could catch them moving around. Say, give everybody an itinerary card and institute a curfew (just for the duration

Who do you know that has suggested such actions?
I certainly didn't!

The Constitution is less important than safety, right?

How are these contrary to the Constitution, especially when dealing with national security?

How far would you like to go? What price are you willing to pay for the illusion of safety?

As far as necessary.
Your "illusion" is another man's reality.
I feel MUCH safer with the aforementioned tactics being practiced than if they were not.
Apparently you don't.
So be it.

 

[tube_ee]

How has the Constitution been violated???

Here's a clue: The Constitution requires a warrant, supported by probable cause and a description of the place to be searched and the articles to be siezed, before any American can be searched or surveilled. Every American, every time. No matter what they look like. "He looked sort of like somebody who was a terrorist" won't get you a warrant in any court in this country, and therefore cannot be used to justify a search. Even if they're brown, and practice a religion you hate, and even if you want them all to go away. They're Americans, and they get the same rights you do. If you have a problem with that, you are anti-American, not the ACLU.

Here's another clue: There is no "wartime exemption" to the Bill of Rights. None. There is a clause allowing for the suspension of Habeus Corpus in the event of rebellion, but this isn't one. There isn't a clause in the 4th ammendment that says "this ammendment can be ignored if it will make people feel safe."

The 4th Ammendment is an absolute restriction of government power. "This you cannot do." That's why law enforcement and authoritarians of all political stripes (lately conservatives, but it hasn't always been that way) hate it. It limits their power. And yep, occaisionaly some guilty person gets away because evidence was improperly collected, and that's a shame. But making sure that that cannot happen would be worse. Living in an authoritarian police state isn't much fun, nor is it safe. The 4th Ammendment is as essential to your liberty as the 1st or the 2nd.

Read the document please, and show how the powers the President has asserted, and that you think he should have, are allowed by the rules that define his office. I've looked, and I can't do it, but you're welcome to try.

If September 11th scared you so badly that you're willing to give up your liberties to George Bush and the Republicans, please bear in mind that (a) You'll have to try to get them back when the "war" is over, and (b) You may be turning them over to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. I'm thinking that you'd have a problem with that.

You might want to give some thought to the odds of your being a victim of a terrorist attack, as well. Me, I'm more worried about Alberto Gonzalez than Osama Bin Laden. All Bin Laden can do is kill me, and we're all gonna die someday.

--Shannon

 

[KenpoProfessor]

I hope you're kidding

Any and all of the things you mentioned in the name of "Security" is a breech of the US Constitution, ever heard of the 4th amendment? Make less laws and let the people defend themselves via the 2nd amendment and see where it takes us, it certainly couldn't get worse. Most are sheeple like yoursel from what I'm reading. Me, I'm a sheepdog, and the wolves will be far less significant with a few more around.

I'm not willing to see Nazi USA antime in the future, guess you're willing to sacrifice that aspect. These incremental changes have larger results every day, and I'm not for it at all.


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[ccwolff]

I have yet to be shown how the Constitution has been violated.
And you never will because the defination of what the Constitution means is constantly being interpreted and then reinterpreted as needed.

It is not supposed to be "living document" to the point that it just means what the majority wants it to mean, no matter what highschool teachers say.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Google: bush constitution interpretation
for more examples if you dont like this one.

I'm suprised he has not adopted the slogan "Interpretations, not violations!"

And keeping in mind we are doing battle with an enemy that desperately wants to destroy us, how would the ACLU members propose we address the problems
Well is up to you to define: "an enemy that desperately wants to destroy us"

Townsend: We may talk to the American people about the "global war on terror," but I take issue with the idea that we have failed to correctly define the enemy. We're fighting a transnational movement of radical extremists -- a network of organizations and individuals, both state-supported and independent -- that uses terrorism as a means to an ideological end. So we know who the enemy is. What's more, our effectiveness against that enemy will depend on our ability to use not just the military but all instruments of national power, to include diplomatic, law enforcement, intelligence, and economic power.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=34933&dcn=todaysnews

Described as being both everywhere and nowhere, supported and not supported.That has got to be the most specific way to be as vage as possible that I have ever heard.

Is a few minutes of your time too much to sacrifice?

Yes.

How far would you like to go? What price are you willing to pay for the illusion of safety?

Not the price that is being paid now. Thats for sure, in fact, I want a refund.
NOW!

 

[GoSlash27]

Das Boot,

My initial question I would think is pretty obvious.
I have yet to be shown how the Constitution has been violated.

Apparently not, else I wouldn't have asked. But now that you have clarified I can answer.

Profiling: Violates the 1st and 4th Amendments because merely being a member of a certain religion does not construe probable cause for a search.

Random searches: Violates the 1st and 4th Amendments because peaceable assembly is not probable cause for a search.

Warrantless wiretapping: Violates the 4th Amendment because due process was ignored prior to violating Americans' "personal effects".

And I'll throw in a few more for free while we're on the subject.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

See "faith-based initiatives" and profiling Muslims.

or abridging the freedom of speech

Such as summarily ejecting law-abiding protestors from speeches

or of the press

such as holding the press accountable for reporting whistleblowing stories in national security matters, accusing newspapers of treason.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

"free speech zones"

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See Wilson, Plame, ACLU vs. NSA

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Random searches, support for AWB

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Warrantless wiretapping, library records, bank transactions, etc. etc.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Padilla.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent Domain.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Padilla, Gitmo, secret prison network.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Waterboarding, Sodomy....fill in the blanks yourself.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Pretty much a catch-all to torpedo whatever objections you might raise to the above

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

See Federal Marriage Amdt, medicinal marijuana, assisted suicide.

(Amdt 14)Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See all of the above, plus abortion.

...The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned

Filing cabinets full of worthless IOUs.

I hope this is sufficiently detailed.

Without searches, the possibility of finding a BG is zero.

I agree. The searches should be conducted legally.

Who do you know that has suggested such actions?
I certainly didn't!

I did. Just now. What, you don't like my suggestions?

As far as necessary.
Your "illusion" is another man's reality.
I feel MUCH safer with the aforementioned tactics being practiced than if they were not.
Apparently you don't.
So be it.

"as far as is necessary" is highly subjective, as 100% complete guaranteed safety is impossible. If we just place all Americans in cells with closed-circuit monitoring that'd make us as safe as possible. I suppose you're fine with that.

And you're right; I don't feel safer knowing that my government is ignoring my protections and violating it's own laws.

You draw the line where you like and have a nice day. I personally draw the line where the behavior violates the Constitution.

IAC, I hope your questions have been sufficiently answered.

 

[Socrates]

"The ACLU isn't a "planning" agency, it's a watchdog group. They don't care how the government chooses to tackle problems so long as it's constitutional."

THE ONLY CONSTITUTION THESE ULTRA LIBERALS PROTECT IS THE ONE THEY HAVE, AND, IT DOESN'T HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT.
HECK, I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY PROTECT IS OURS, JUST THEIR BELIEF IN HOW GOVERNMENT SHOULD FUNCTION, and, it has NO BASIS IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
I think they should all be investigated, and disbarred, for failing to follow their oath, that requires, as attorneys, to uphold the Constitution, not the parts they like, not their idea of it, but, it's plain meaning, in English.

Kenpo professor is correct. If we allowed EVERYONE to be armed to a reasonable level on a plane, highjackers would be shot much more quickly, and, we would be able to defend ourselves.

Laws only effect those willing to follow them. Sure, metal detectors, etc. make it more difficult for highjackers.
However, one must wonder if we really want to stop hijacking, why we don't adopt what ever measures Israel uses, since they, and Quantus, are the only unhijacketed airlines.

Police CAN"T protect us. They can try and find the person that shot you, but, that's not going to be much of a comfort, if you're dead.

S

 

[mete]

I wonder if there are any others beside myself who have read of the origins and history of the ACLU ? It will give you a much better understanding of them.

 

[Mike40-11]

I'm hearing a bunch of "violations of the Constitution" or "violations of the 4th amendment" but I have yet to here a description of just how they were violated.

It IS indeed possible to conduct a lawful search without a warrant. The 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A search that is not "unreasonable" is legal. Of course, this is where we get to the sticky part, defining reasonable and unreasonable.

I tend to be a little more lenient is the case of the NSA surveillance program, which is, I assume, what everyone is up in arms about. Primarily because it is not used as a dragnet looking for people to prosecute. It targets phones and/or people that have connections to known or suspected terrorists. It is used for intelligence gathering, not criminal prosecution (at least as far as I have seen at present). I find that to be reasonable. Now, if it were a case of "I think this one guy's neighbor's cousin's best friend's uncle might have spoken to this one dude we think is terrorist so lets bug his phone," I would call that unreasonable.

What I am hearing here is ANY intelligence gathering that involves an American is illegal without a warrant. That simply isn't true. If you want to argue that it SHOULD be illegal, that would be a legitimate contention.

Edit: I said I hadn't heard specifics but I see GoSlash posted numerous specific allegations while I was writing this.

 

[DasBoot]

I've got more than enough knowledge and ability to protect myself and my family in almost any situation that requires me to be proactive.
Sounds to me that you guys are the ones that are scared and/or paranoid.
if anything!
Every law we have is, in some form or another, an infringement on our privacy,freedom of movement/behaviour, etc.
I guess guys carrying large bundles out of a known drug den, putting them in their car and driving away should'nt be stopped and questioned/searched either in your eyes.
how about clubs?
I felt a little better knowing that people were being searched for weapons at the door before going into some of the clubs I frequented in NYC.
To me, its all the same.
A small inconvenience which I'm happy to make.
You guys have a problem with it, too bad!
These things are being done whether you like it or not and I for one hope it continues.
Increases even!

GS,
You've done your homework.
I'll read through it all later.
As for "profiling"!
For God's sake, if ALL people to date committing any given crime fit within the parameters of a certain physical standard, and it's YOUR duty to prevent any more of those crimes, are you going to concentrate more of your efforts on those that DON"T fit those parameters?
THAT'S SIMPLY STUPID!!
IT'S COMMON SENSE!
IT'S GOOD POLICE WORK!

I agree. The searches should be conducted legally

If these aren't done with some level of profiling, how can it be done legally.
No young, Middle Eastern men should be approached because it would be profiling???
If your looking for the MS13 gang member that just shot you child at the mall, would you want the police to question the kid with "MS13" tatooed on his neck?
OH NO! THAT would be PROFILING!!!!
Or let him go and question the blonde guy next to him wearing the Ralph Lauren ensemble??
This "no profiling " mentality is going to get more people hurt/killed.
But it's good to hear that some agency, is it the TSA, has now decided to re-instate a policy of profiling on some level.
It's liberal PC insanity not to.
As for "wiretapping".
Unless I'm mistaken, Americans WERE NOT being wiretapped.
Phone calls to and from known terrorist individuals/countries/etc were BEING MONITORED.
NOT the average American.
There is a difference, is there not?
Same with money transfers.
Sounds like a good portion of you guys want to take every tool away from the gov't to fight this battle.
Or tie it up in some litigation so as to make us more impotent and vulnerable.
If it will help with this battle against terrorism, the gov't can monitor my phone 24hrs a day.
They'll get bored real soon and move on.

 

[tube_ee]

I doubt they'd care to understand the ACLU. It has a nasty habit of preventing the Government from doing what they want it to. Authoritarian theocrats don't like opposition. Berating the ACLU for not standing up for the 2nd ammendment is like berating the NRA for ignoring everything else. We need both organizations. It'd be nice is there was one organization that stood up for all of our liberties, but there isn't. At least not that have been as effective as these two. The ACLU has stood up for some people I find disgusting. That's to thier credit.

And back on topic, since the police power is the one power of government the average citizen is most likely to feel the force of, it is precisely the power whose expansion should cause the greatest concern.

--Shannon

 

[GoSlash27]

Mike,

What I am hearing here is ANY intelligence gathering that involves an American is illegal without a warrant. That simply isn't true. If you want to argue that it SHOULD be illegal, that would be a legitimate contention.

Just to clarify, I am not arguing about what should and shouldn't be legal. I'm saying that the NSA program violated a truckload of statutes as well as the Constitution itself. It is very clearly, unarguably, and demonstrably illegal according to the intent *and* letter of the law.
I think Das Boot's argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is not that it's legal, but rather "it's for your own good". Your mileage may very. Mine certainly does.

Das Boot,
This is not a matter that I expect to agree with you on. You merely asked for the viewpoint and I answered as best I can. If there's anything else you don't understand about it, ask away.

 

[Mike40-11]

Goslash:

Profiling: Violates the 1st and 4th Amendments because merely being a member of a certain religion does not construe probable cause for a search.

No. SEARCHING a person because of their religion would be a violation. Noting that a particular person has a background consistent with the vast majority of terrorists and thus might bear closer attention (which is what profiling is) is not.

Random searches: Violates the 1st and 4th Amendments because peaceable assembly is not probable cause for a search.

Agreed.

Warrantless wiretapping: Violates the 4th Amendment because due process was ignored prior to violating Americans' "personal effects".

Not if it is found to be 'reasonable'. I agree it is a very dicey situation and could easily slip over into illegal searches. At present I don't believe it is at that point and must be carefully monitored so that it doesn't get there.

See "faith-based initiatives" and profiling Muslims.

Neither of those establish or prohibit a religion.

such as holding the press accountable for reporting whistleblowing stories in national security matters, accusing newspapers of treason.

I don't recall any reporters prosecuted recently for violations of national security. Or are you conteneding that it should be illegal to say that they shouldn't have done it?

See Wilson, Plame, ACLU vs. NSA

I believe they are indeed being allowed to 'petition for redress.' Doesn't mean they will win. Or have they been prohibited from complaining or suing?

Padilla, Gitmo, secret prison network.

Speedy trial applies to American citizens arrested for a crime, not enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. The case of Padilla however, does trouble me.

Waterboarding, Sodomy....fill in the blanks yourself.

These are not punishments or bail. These are enemy combatants (with the exception of Padilla) being held and interrogated pursuant to hostilities. Criminal protections do not apply. Abuse is still of course illegal. It is not US policy and it is punished when discovered."

In your opinion, all of these are Constitutional violations, in mine, most are not. We should NOT afford enemy combatants the protections of American citizens. In the case of suspects who ARE American citizens we of course, are required to.

 

[Mike40-11]

Just to clarify, I am not arguing about what should and shouldn't be legal. I'm saying that the NSA program violated a truckload of statutes as well as the Constitution itself. It is very clearly, unarguably, and demonstrably illegal according to the intent *and* letter of the law.

No, it is not. If it were that clear there wouldn't be so much arguing about it.
I do not know exactly what the NSA program consists of. Neither do you. You seem to think that it is random listening in on whoever they want or suspect in order to get them. If that were the case, I would agree that it is illegal. I think that is more carefully target intelligence gathering. There is a big difference between gathering intelligence and gathering evidence.

 

[tube_ee]

Sorry. The courts have held, correctly I think, that electronic surveillance constitutes a search. Therefore, warrants are required. Congress specifically aligned the law with this requirement with the FISA. You can't listen to half of a phone conversation, so in the supposed case that one talker is an American in the USA, and the other is an Al-Queda operative in Pakistan, you've still got to go to a secret court and get a warrant. If operational needs require immediate surveillance, you've got three days (and up to a week sometimes) to go to the court to issue the warrant retroactively. If they don't, the collected information can't be used in court. You don't have to destroy it, or forget that you learned it. So a terrorist plot could still be foiled, you just couldn't prosecute whoever you caught. The court in question is probably the most permisive in the Federal judiciary. They almost never deny warrants.

So 1st, the Constitution appies to the intellignce-gathering parts of the Executive brach, 2nd, Congress passed a law that this program, at least as it has been described by the Attorney General, to the Congress clearly violates, and 3rd, if you understand the FISA law, there's no reason I can see for this program. The Government ialready has all the authority they need, they just have to get it approved. There's some oversight. What this program and the Administration's defense of it says to me is that they really don't like oversight. And that should worry you.

I can think of no threat that justifies allowing the President to break the law at will. Not one. The creation of an all-powerful Executive would be the death of the Republic. Ask the Romans, or the Italians, or the Spanish, or any resident of every democracy that's tried it. Eventually, they all do, and it always works out badly.

--Shannon

 

[Mike40-11]

If operational needs require immediate surveillance, you've got three days (and up to a week sometimes) to go to the court to issue the warrant retroactively. If they don't, the collected information can't be used in court. You don't have to destroy it, or forget that you learned it. So a terrorist plot could still be foiled, you just couldn't prosecute whoever you caught.

Ding ding ding! That is my point exactly. Gathering information and using it to prevent terrorism in this manner is not illegal. It is however, inadmissable as evidence without the warrant.

When people start getting prosecuted with information collected from warrantless unreasonable searches, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, if I thought it were likely that this would happen I would agree with you. Since it is not happening, nor do I believe it likely, I do not think we should forgo this information.

 

[tube_ee]

The problem with that argument is that the FISA isn't about rules of evidence. It says that the Government may not conduct the surveillance without a warrant. The exclusionary rule argument I was making was about what can be done with the results of surveillance when a retroactive FISA warrant is denied. Which, so far as I know, has never happened. Also, the 4th Ammendment isn't about evidence, it's about the rights of the people and the powers of the Government. Evidentiary rules are one consequence of the 4th Ammendment, they are not the reason for it. It applies to all searches and seizures, whether they are evidentiary or not. You can't even conduct (without a warrant) general surveillance to find out which hose on a block has got the pot garden, and then go back and get a warrant to search that house. The Supreme Court said that a few years back, and they were right.

If the 4th Ammendment only protected us from searches and seizures to collect evidence for trials, it would be perfectly Constitutional for a State to pass a law allowing the cops to bust down your door and take all your stuff, as long as they didn't claim it was evidence. Is that your position?

--Shannon

 

[DasBoot]

If operational needs require immediate surveillance, you've got three days (and up to a week sometimes) to go to the court to issue the warrant retroactively. If they don't, the collected information can't be used in court.

So what's everybody getting their panties in a twist about?!
Do the surveillance, gather all the needed info, then quietly ice these guys.
Clean and quiet.
No warrant needed.
Nice!
And your worried about getting these guys into court??!!

 

[FirstFreedom]

When the ACLU and its members show anything but disdain and contempt for the most important fundamental civil right, the R to KBA, I'll at that time listen to anything they have to say. They are right about Bush, but I'm not giving them credit for figuring that out - it's patently obvious to those who have studied the issue.