Re: Baby-Food Bombing and highly selective quoting

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 04:45 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, some anonymous FUDder sent us this:
>

> http://thomas.loc.gov/r104/r104s17ap6.html
>
>I think the following is a permanent URL, but I'm sure you can't make hard
>links any deeper:
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:S17AP6-332:
>
>Also note that this speech concerns an amendment to S735 that FAILED.
>I.e., the language for which the esteemed [snort] Mr. Biden is arguing IS
>NOT IN THE BILL AS PASSED BY THE SENATE.
>
>>[...]
>>                                                   As some people tell
>> it, you would think the FBI and BATF and the local and State police
>> are tapping our phones left and right, that they are riding down the
>> streets in vans with electronic devices eavesdropping into our
>> windows and houses--which they have the capacity to do, by the way.
>
>Mr. Biden's next sentence, which either Mr. Thompson or the anonymous
>forwarder conveniently left out, is "But that is just not the way it
>works." 

Here's a question, however:  What, exactly, stands between the way it is 
supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections."  I 
see nothing in the Constitution which mandates them, at least explicitly, 
which suggests that the thugs might simply decide, tomorrow, that they are 
not really necessary after all.  Is it possible that the only reason these 
protections are in place is to provide a window-dressing of caution, to 
ensure that the disgust of the public doesn't get too great?

And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for:  Why is 
there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after 
the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a 
search warrant normally gets?


Jim Bell
jimbell@Pacifier.com