Pay attention, NK. I never came remotely close to saying that. What I have said from the beginning is having no right to resist UNLAWFUL entry by the cops "ain't American" and is "just wrong." You may keep your 'logic' to yourself.

Hello again, tom:

In other words, you too, TRUST the government... As a card carrying right winger, you should be ashamed.

Drug traffickers are suspected of terrorism.. Should the government SPY on all the drug users in the hopes of catching a terrorist... Or, maybe a dealer if a terrorist isn't available...

How long before they start SPYING on them? Oh, I know, I know.. Drug users are on your list of people who don't deserve to be protected under the Constitution either. It's COOL with you that THOSE people get bugged... Frankly, I think they already are. If you were the government, wouldn't you?

What OTHER groups shouldn't be entitled to Constitutional rights?? How about Democrats or gay people?

Yup, you opened Pandora's Box, and then you complain when it comes back to bite you.

excon

In Texas I have that right.

In Virginia we do too. And can open carry most places as well (which I can't exercise because I cross state lines daily).

How will you know if your phone conversations or emails are being spied on unlawfully?

The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches .
I contend that a surveillance on someone communicating with jihadist terrorists is reasonable .

In the case in the op. I think it was reasonable ,given the cirumstances ,for the cop to enter the apartment .

You'd have to give me the specific case where the government was tapping a drug user just because he was a drug user . As for the Democrats or gay people... there is no reasonable justification to eaves drop on them as a 'group ' .

I think listening in to a person talking to a jihadist is a very narrow parameter that falls well within the probable cause definition. Unlike you,I don't use illogic to twist that into a pretzel that claims broad groups of people are losing their Constitutional rights.

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, now's your chance... You used the words "supposed to" above.. If you didn't BELIEVE that's what they were going to do, THAT was the time to say so... You didn't.

Do you NOW believe that the government is SPYING on you BEYOND what they are authorized to do??

Come on, Steve, you can tell me. I won't tell tom.

excon

Hello again,

Let's call a spade a spade... In terms of POLICE and SECURITY matters, you, tom and smoothy, TRUST the government. In terms of SOCIAL matters, you don't.

Clearly, that's more a matter of IDEOLOGY rather than an inherent distrust of government...

Me, on the other hand, just plain don't trust the government.

excon

Paranoia big destroyer...

What a life you must lead... assuming that because the government is listening in to a conversation between a jihadist and his domestic contact that they care about what you say . The only reason they would listen to me is if they forgot to take their melatonin dose and needed a quick nap.

So let the cops search your home whether they have cause or not - you have nothing to hide right? Right?

And why they even come near your home... you're a boring guy who doesn't talk to terrorrist, so why are you worried about the Indiana ruling?

The judge got it wrong. I already said the cops did the right thing. The judge is wrong in saying a person doesn't have the right to resist an unlawful entry. The trial judge was also wrong in not allowing the defendant to make his case to the jury.

Hello again, tom:

If I live my life NOT trusting the government, then I'm in good company. I don't mind being associated with Thomas Jefferson.

You, if anybody, should understand the long term implications of the destruction of the Fourth Amendment... If you DON'T, then I've given you wayyyy too much credit as a historian. If you DO, then you are looking the other way because of short term political expedience...

Either way, it's dangerous stuff.

excon

PS> Am I to determine from your post that you've just been joshing about not trusting Obama and Holder? Nahhhh. You're STILL paranoid... What a life YOU must lead!

As an historian I understand that there are more protections under the 4th now than there have ever been. To my knowledge the President or any President in my life time has not gone into anyone's home ;wisked them away and put them in a concentration camp for the duration of the war like the liberal champion Roosevelt did to the Japanese-Americans as a group .The liberal SCOTUS found that perfectly acceptable by the way I bet they wish the only thing the President did was listen to their phone calls.