I think PersonaNonGrata is right to say that there is not very much to worry about here. Compared to the rights squandered in the Patriot Act, this is nothing.

At least there is still the requirement of a warrent, which means there is oversight. What scares me about some of the things in the Patriot Act is that it eliminates any oversight, meaning that such powers can easily be abused. And as we know from past American history and the Church Committee hearings during the 1970s, such powers have been abused many times in the past.

As long as there is oversight over law enforcement by a court of some sort, then I am ok with it. :)

Peace...your native tongue is I believe, officially considered the toughest language in the world to master, so all due respect in that your English is far better than my Icelandic.

There is a very subtle and very funny result in confusing a terrorist with a theorist, and calling a guy Wanger is actually very funny--it sounds a little like a British slang word...I have no idea how this could translate...I learned last week that a certain Japanese 4x4, I think it is the Pajero, had to have the name changed for export to Argentina, because in Argentine slang, a "pajero" is the same as a masturbator.

So any of you thinking of exporting a Pajero to Argentina, be prepared at customs.

Guess I could use your "Mod-erately Challenged" listing. Peace.

You have asked x54.4blue before if he was truly from Iceland, based on his flag selection, and he ignored the inquiry. Therefore, your peace offering may be accurate, or not. :whistle:

No I am not from Iceland, just thought the Flag looked nice.

English is my native tongue, still does not mean I can spell.

mitsubishi pajero = mitsubishi montero (for the philippines and some other asian countries, I don't know if that term applies to all.

Hahaha, great insight on the argentine slang. I'll keep that in mind.

Here I am.

I'm no expert, and I haven't read the opinion yet. From what I've heard, the warrant requirement is still alive and well, and Mr. NonGrata's take is spot on -- as usual.

Sounds like Hudson v. Michigan is merely an extension of the earlier line of "knock and announce" cases (beginning with Wilson v. Arkansas), the progeny of which contained several exceptions to that requirement. This appears to be the most recent in a long line of exceptions to The Exclusionary Rule -- which is also still alive and well.

But, I was absent that day, so...:D