"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:35:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


No its not an admission. They claim that in certain cases..no warrant
was needed. I see you have been dipping into the adult beverages a
bit early.

As far as I know, they said they're protected from one law by another
law,
only the "other" law doesn't give them specific authority to violate the
first law, nor the Constitution.

That's a constitutional battle for the courts. Meantime, we'll have to
wait
for the wheels in DC to stop churning long enough to get an update.

--
Ed Huntress

Im glad to see you have moderated your stance. Good on ya.

If you actually read the words I wrote, rather than imagine what I'm getting
at, you'd see that my position on this issue has been absolutely unchanged
from the first message in the thread.

There is no question the law was broken. There is a slight question of
whether the law is superceded by another law. And there is a large question
of whether it's all constitutional -- including the idea that Congress could
ever authorize the president to violate the 4th Amendment. That's where the
majority of legal scholars think the administration would come up short, if
the case ever gets to the Court.

But it probably won't. On all points, that's exacly what I've said from the
beginning.

--
Ed Huntress