>
>Yes, but this is not a police state. Enough checks and balances are in place to prevent widespread abuse.

And my concern is the president is side stepping existing checks and balances, why should I think it is/will be limited to one program that has come to light.

>
>>Warrantless physical searches - This puzzles me, why do you have a problem with this and not electronic and why would think this is not happening now?
>
>Because there is already nothing secret about electronic communications. You can go to Radio Shack and get the gear required to snoop.

I am not sure I could gain the same access to electronic communications using radio shack products that the government can with the aid a telecomm company, but I will take your word on that. Regardless, I do expect that even if you are listening to my calls and reading my emails, that the government is not. The radio shack method sounds to hard for me, I'll just go to home depot and get some tools needed for a physical search.


>
>Now you are playing what-if games. Do we know how many are being held without charges? If I remember correctly, the only one was Padillo. There have been a few with dual citizenship that have been shipped out.

I was trying to establish your tolerence for giving up rights. Mine is zero. Once we strip the rights of one, we are all at risk. We are not a police state and I would like it to stay that way.