[ QUOTE ]
Go back under your bridge, troll. PoBoy asked for an argument suggesting that the wiretaps might be constitutional. I gave one. Obviously Bin Laden doesn't apply directly, but it's damn close, and in my two minutes of research I didn't find anything closer. So, at the very least, it demonstrates some of the possible arguments that could be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Call me names all you want, but you are disgracing yourself with these types of ill-informed posts.

<u>Bin Laden</u> is "damn close" and supports your argument??? Read it again. The Court in <u>Bin Laden</u> held that there was no need for a warrant for a PHYSICAL search on foreign soil conducted primarily for intelligence purposes. Got that? A PHYSICAL search. As to the electronic sulvellience -- the wiretaps -- at issue in <u>Bin Laden</u>, the Court held that the exception to the warant requirement DID NOT APPLY. To be sure, the Court did not exclude the evidence because it gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and said that its reliance on a lawyer's mistaken opinion of the law showed that it was acting in "good faith". Ironically, the existence of <u>Bin Laden</u> itself would deprive the government of even that argument this time around. But the Court was perfectly clear that a warrant -- i.e., judicial oversight -- was required.

Put another way, <u>bin Laden</u> says pretty much the opposite of what you claim. And all the name calling in the world won't change that. The fact that PoBoy or anyone else asked you to make an argument doesn't give you a pass when you make as bad an argument as you have made here.